The association between metabolically healthy obesity and risk of cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort 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
Summary The risk of cancer among adults with metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) has not yet been established. We systematically searched from inception to 15 March 2020. We included prospective cohort studies that compared participants with MHO and participants with metabolically healthy non‐obesity (MHNO) for incidence of any type of cancer. Benign tumors, cancer mortality or cancer prognosis were not in the scope of our analysis. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Ultimately, eight studies with a total of 12 542 390 participants were included. The pooled meta‐analysis using random effect model showed participants with MHO demonstrated a significantly increased risk of developing cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.23; and I 2 = 39%) than those with MHNO. The subgroup analysis revealed a higher pooled estimate (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01–1.35; and I 2 = 56%) in comparison with metabolically healthy normal weight. No evidence of effect modification by age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sample size or length of follow‐up was found. In conclusion, the present study reports a positive association between MHO and cancer incidence. All individuals with obesity, even in the absence of metabolic dysfunction, should be encouraged to lose weight.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
| 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