MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023870009 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000020046

Association of two novel adiposity indicators with visceral fat area in type 2 diabetic patients

2020· article· en· W3023870009 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBioelectrical impedance analysisBody Shape IndexInternal medicineWaistType 2 diabetesVisceral fatBody mass indexEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusArea under the curveIntra-Abdominal FatGastroenterologyInsulin resistanceClassification of obesityFat mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study evaluated the performance of 2 novel adiposity indicators, body shape index (ABSI), and body roundness index (BRI), to determine the accumulation of visceral fat in type 2 diabetic patients.A cross-sectional study was performed on 233 type 2 diabetic patients from Qinhuangdao, China. Visceral fat area (VFA) was measured using bioelectrical impedance. Accumulation of visceral fat was defined as VFA ≥ 100 cm.In diabetic males, the area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.904 for waist circumference (WC), 0.923 for BRI, and 0.788 for ABSI. In diabetic females, the AUC values were 0.894 for WC, 0.915 for BRI, and 0.668 for ABSI. The AUCs were similar between BRI and WC (P > .05). The AUC for ABSI was lower compared to WC and BRI (P < .05). The optimal cut-off for BRI was 4.25 for diabetic males (sensitivity = 87.8% and specificity = 81.1%) and 4.75 for diabetic females (sensitivity = 80.8% and specificity = 88.1%).BRI was an effective indicator for determining the accumulation of visceral fat in type 2 diabetic patients, however, it was not better compared to WC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it