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 OpenAlexaff
Junru Liu, Dongmei Fan, Xing Wang, Fuzai Yin

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicBody Contouring and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207