Measures of Adiposity and Risk of Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the UK Biobank Study
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess if body mass index (BMI) and high waist circumference (HWC) are associated with testing positive for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods. 9,386 UK Biobank study participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 16th 2020 to June 29th 2020 were analyzed. A forward model building approach was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Analyses were stratified by age due to a significant first-order interaction between age and HWC. Results. Approximately 17% (n = 1,577) of participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. BMI category had a linear association with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among participants <65 years (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.17). For participants ≥65 years, only obesity class II (RR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10–1.74) had a significantly greater risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 than those who were underweight/normal weight. While HWC was not associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in those <65 years, having an HWC was associated with an increased risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in participants ≥65 years (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.00–1.27). Conclusion. The associations of BMI and HWC with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 differed by age. Notably, HWC was associated with testing positive in those ≥65 years, but not those who were younger, independent of BMI. This suggests that measures of adiposity in addition to BMI may be used to identify older individuals at greater risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".