Body mass index and all‐cause mortality in older adults: A scoping review of observational studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In older age, body composition changes as fat mass increases and redistributes. Therefore, the current body mass index (BMI) classification may not accurately reflect risk in older adults (65+). This study aimed to review the evidence on the association between BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults and specifically, the findings regarding overweight and obese BMI. A systematic search of the OVID MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted between 2013 and September 2018. Observational studies examining the association between BMI and all-cause mortality within a community-dwelling population aged 65+ were included. Seventy-one articles were included. Studies operationalized BMI categorically (n = 60), continuously (n = 8) or as a numerical change/group transition (n = 7). Reduced risk of mortality was observed for the overweight BMI class compared with the normal BMI class (hazard ratios [HR] ranged 0.41-0.96) and for class 1 or 2 obesity in some studies. Among studies examining BMI change, increases in BMI demonstrated lower mortality risks compared with decreases in BMI (HR: 0.83-0.95). Overweight BMI classification or a higher BMI value may be protective with regard to all-cause mortality, relative to normal BMI, in older adults. These findings demonstrate the potential need for age-specific BMI cut-points in older adults.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it