Obesity among postmenopausal women: what is the best anthropometric index to assess adiposity and success of weight-loss intervention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: First, to establish the respective ability of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and relative fat mass index (RFM), to estimate body fat (BF%) measured by DXA (DXA-BF%) and correctly identify postmenopausal women living with obesity (BF% > 35). Second, to identify the best indicator of successful weight-loss intervention in postmenopausal women living with obesity. METHODS: A total of 277 women (age: 59.8 ± 5.3 y; BF%: 43.4 ± 5.3) from five weight-loss studies with complete data for anthropometric measurements [BMI = weight/height (kg/m2); WC (cm)] and BF% were pooled together. Statistical performance indicators were determined to assess ability of RFM [64-(20 × height/waist circumference) + (12 × sex)], BMI and WC to estimate BF% before and after weight-loss intervention and to correctly identify postmenopausal women living with obesity. RESULTS: Compared with RFM (r = 0.51; r2 = 0.27; RMSE = 4.4%; Lin's CCC = 0.46) and WC (r = 0.49; r2 = 0.25; RMSE = 4.8%; Lin's CCC = 0.41), BMI (r = 0.73; r2 = 0.52; RMSE = 3.7%; Lin's CCC = 0.71) was the best anthropometric index to estimate DXA-BF% and correctly identify postmenopausal women living with obesity (sensitivity + specificity: BMI = 193; RFM = 152; WC = 158), with lower misclassification error, before weight-loss intervention. After weight-loss, the change in BMI was strongly correlated with change in DXA-BF%, indicating that the BMI is the best indicator of success weight-loss intervention. CONCLUSION: In the absence of more objective measures of adiposity, BMI is a suitable proxy measure for BF% in postmenopausal women, for whom a lifestyle intervention is relevant. Furthermore, BMI can be used as an indicator to assess success of weight-loss intervention in this subpopulation.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".