Obesity Phenotypes, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review addresses the interplay between obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular diseases. It is proposed that obesity, generally defined by an excess of body fat causing prejudice to health, can no longer be evaluated solely by the body mass index (expressed in kg/m 2 ) because it represents a heterogeneous entity. For instance, several cardiometabolic imaging studies have shown that some individuals who have a normal weight or who are overweight are at high risk if they have an excess of visceral adipose tissue—a condition often accompanied by accumulation of fat in normally lean tissues (ectopic fat deposition in liver, heart, skeletal muscle, etc). On the other hand, individuals who are overweight or obese can nevertheless be at much lower risk than expected when faced with excess energy intake if they have the ability to expand their subcutaneous adipose tissue mass, particularly in the gluteal-femoral area. Hence, excessive amounts of visceral adipose tissue and of ectopic fat largely define the cardiovascular disease risk of overweight and moderate obesity. There is also a rapidly expanding subgroup of patients characterized by a high accumulation of body fat (severe obesity). Severe obesity is characterized by specific additional cardiovascular health issues that should receive attention. Because of the difficulties of normalizing body fat content in patients with severe obesity, more aggressive treatments have been studied in this subgroup of individuals such as obesity surgery, also referred to as metabolic surgery. On the basis of the above, we propose that we should refer to obesities rather than obesity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".