MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045655399 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003198

The global burden of disease attributable to high body mass index in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: An analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study

2020· article· en· W3045655399 on OpenAlexaff
Haijiang Dai, Tariq A. Alsalhe, Nasr Chalghaf, Matteo Riccò, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexDisease burdenBurden of diseaseGlobal healthPublic healthObesityEnvironmental healthDiseaseDemographyQuality-adjusted life yearPsychological interventionGerontologyPopulationCost effectivenessInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity represents an urgent problem that needs to be properly addressed, especially among children. Public and global health policy- and decision-makers need timely, reliable quantitative information to develop effective interventions aimed at counteracting the burden generated by high body mass index (BMI). Few studies have assessed the high-BMI-related burden on a global scale. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Following the methodology framework and analytical strategies used in the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2017, the global deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) attributable to high BMI were analyzed by age, sex, year, and geographical location and by Socio-demographic Index (SDI). All causes of death and DALYs estimated in GBD 2017 were organized into 4 hierarchical levels: level 1 contained 3 broad cause groupings, level 2 included more specific categories within the level 1 groupings, level 3 comprised more detailed causes within the level 2 categories, and level 4 included sub-causes of some level 3 causes. From 1990 to 2017, the global deaths and DALYs attributable to high BMI have more than doubled for both females and males. However, during the study period, the age-standardized rate of high-BMI-related deaths remained stable for females and only increased by 14.5% for males, and the age-standardized rate of high-BMI-related DALYs only increased by 12.7% for females and 26.8% for males. In 2017, the 6 leading GBD level 3 causes of high-BMI-related DALYs were ischemic heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease, and low back pain. For most GBD level 3 causes of high-BMI-related DALYs, high-income North America had the highest attributable proportions of age-standardized DALYs due to high BMI among the 21 GBD regions in both sexes, whereas the lowest attributable proportions were observed in high-income Asia Pacific for females and in eastern sub-Saharan Africa for males. The association between SDI and high-BMI-related DALYs suggested that the lowest age-standardized DALY rates were found in countries in the low-SDI quintile and high-SDI quintile in 2017, and from 1990 to 2017, the age-standardized DALY rates tended to increase in regions with the lowest SDI, but declined in regions with the highest SDI, with the exception of high-income North America. The study's main limitations included the use of information collected from some self-reported data, the employment of cutoff values that may not be adequate for all populations and groups at risk, and the use of a metric that cannot distinguish between lean and fat mass. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that the number of global deaths and DALYs attributable to high BMI has substantially increased between 1990 and 2017. Successful population-wide initiatives targeting high BMI may mitigate the burden of a wide range of diseases. Given the large variations in high-BMI-related burden of disease by SDI, future strategies to prevent and reduce the burden should be developed and implemented based on country-specific development status.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations883
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207