MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088085199 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m3324

Central fatness and risk of all cause mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 72 prospective cohort studies

2020· review· en· W3088085199 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Jayedi, Sepideh Soltani, Mahdieh Sadat Zargar, Tauseef Khan, Sakineh Shab‐Bidar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaistMedicineHazard ratioCircumferenceMeta-analysisConfidence intervalProspective cohort studyCohort studyPopulationWaist–hip ratioBody mass indexInternal medicineMathematicsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To quantify the association of indices of central obesity, including waist circumference, hip circumference, thigh circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, waist-to-thigh ratio, body adiposity index, and A body shape index, with the risk of all cause mortality in the general population, and to clarify the shape of the dose-response relations. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed and Scopus from inception to July 2019, and the reference lists of all related articles and reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective cohort studies reporting the risk estimates of all cause mortality across at least three categories of indices of central fatness. Studies that reported continuous estimation of the associations were also included. Data synthesis A random effects dose-response meta-analysis was conducted to assess linear trend estimations. A one stage linear mixed effects meta-analysis was used for estimating dose-response curves. Results Of 98 745 studies screened, 1950 full texts were fully reviewed for eligibility. The final analyses consisted of 72 prospective cohort studies with 2 528 297 participants. The summary hazard ratios were as follows: waist circumference (10 cm, 3.94 inch increase): 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.13, I 2 =88%, n=50); hip circumference (10 cm, 3.94 inch increase): 0.90 (0.81 to 0.99, I 2 =95%, n=9); thigh circumference (5 cm, 1.97 inch increase): 0.82 (0.75 to 0.89, I 2 =54%, n=3); waist-to-hip ratio (0.1 unit increase): 1.20 (1.15 to 1.25, I 2 =90%, n=31); waist-to-height ratio (0.1 unit increase): 1.24 (1.12 to 1.36, I 2 =94%, n=11); waist-to-thigh ratio (0.1 unit increase): 1.21 (1.03 to 1.39, I 2 =97%, n=2); body adiposity index (10% increase): 1.17 (1.00 to 1.33, I 2 =75%, n=4); and A body shape index (0.005 unit increase): 1.15 (1.10 to 1.20, I 2 =87%, n=9). Positive associations persisted after accounting for body mass index. A nearly J shaped association was found between waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio and the risk of all cause mortality in men and women. A positive monotonic association was observed for waist-to-hip ratio and A body shape index. The association was U shaped for body adiposity index. Conclusions Indices of central fatness including waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, waist-to-thigh ratio, body adiposity index, and A body shape index, independent of overall adiposity, were positively and significantly associated with a higher all cause mortality risk. Larger hip circumference and thigh circumference were associated with a lower risk. The results suggest that measures of central adiposity could be used with body mass index as a supplementary approach to determine the risk of premature death.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.043
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations392
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207