MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043072216 · doi:10.1038/s41366-020-0642-3

Cross-sectional associations between central and general adiposity with albuminuria: observations from 400,000 people in UK Biobank

2020· article· en· W3043072216 on OpenAlexaff
Pengfei Zhu, Sarah Lewington, Richard Haynes, Jonathan Emberson, Martin Landray, David Z.I. Cherney, Mark Woodward, Colin Baigent, William G. Herrington, Natalie Staplin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Obesity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordKidney Research UKBritish Heart FoundationMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexWaistAlbuminuriaOdds ratioConfoundingWaist–hip ratioCross-sectional studyInternal medicineWaist-to-height ratioCreatinineLogistic regressionDiabetes mellitusDemographyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Whether measures of central adiposity are more or less strongly associated with risk of albuminuria than body mass index (BMI), and by how much diabetes/levels of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) explain or modify these associations, is uncertain. Methods Ordinal logistic regression was used to estimate associations between values of central adiposity (waist-to-hip ratio) and, separately, general adiposity (BMI) with categories of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) in 408,527 UK Biobank participants. Separate central and general adiposity-based models were initially adjusted for potential confounders and measurement error, then sequentially, models were mutually adjusted (e.g. waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI, and vice versa), and finally they were adjusted for potential mediators. Results Levels of albuminuria were generally low: 20,425 (5%) had a uACR ≥3 mg/mmol. After adjustment for confounders and measurement error, each 0.06 higher waist-to-hip ratio was associated with a 55% (95%CI 53–57%) increase in the odds of being in a higher uACR category. After adjustment for baseline BMI, this association was reduced to 32% (30–34%). Each 5 kg/m2 higher BMI was associated with a 47% (46–49%) increase in the odds of being in a higher uACR category. Adjustment for baseline waist-to-hip ratio reduced this association to 35% (33–37%). Those with higher HbA1c were at progressively higher odds of albuminuria, but positive associations between both waist-to-hip ratio and BMI were apparent irrespective of HbA1c. Altogether, about 40% of central adiposity associations appeared to be mediated by diabetes, vascular disease and blood pressure. Conclusions Conventional epidemiological approaches suggest that higher waist-to-hip ratio and BMI are independently positively associated with albuminuria. Adiposity–albuminuria associations appear strong among people with normal HbA1c, as well as people with pre-diabetes or diabetes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ObesitySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207