From syndrome X to cardiometabolic risk: clinical and public health implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the first description of a syndrome defined by the co-existence of atherogenic and diabetogenic metabolic abnormalities is debated in the literature, it was Gerald Reaven who proposed, in his landmark 1988 Banting award lecture, that a significant proportion of individuals (with diabetes or not) were characterised by insulin resistance causing prejudice to cardiovascular health. However, Reaven was influenced by seminal observations made more than 50 years earlier by Himsworth who proposed that there were two forms of diabetes (insulin resistant v. insulin sensitive). Reaven went further in proposing the theory that insulin resistance was the most prevalent cause of CVD associated with metabolic abnormalities that he named syndrome X. Because there was a syndrome X documented in cardiology, the term evolved to insulin resistance syndrome. As Reaven could also find insulin-resistant individuals in non-obese subjects, he did not include obesity as a feature of syndrome X. Imaging studies then revealed that excess adipose tissue in the abdominal cavity, a condition described as visceral obesity, was the form of overweight/obesity associated with insulin resistance and its related abnormalities. As obesity risk assessment and management remain largely based on body weight (BMI) and weight loss, it is proposed that our clinical approaches and public health messages should be revisited. First, patients should be educated about the importance of monitoring their waistline as a crude index of abdominal adiposity. Secondly, public health approaches focussing on 'lifestyle vital signs' including achieving healthy waistlines rather than healthy body weights should be developed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".