MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165113697 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18115858

The Association of Upper Body Obesity with Insulin Resistance in the Newfoundland Population

2021· article· en· W3165113697 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sherif Youssef, Matthew Nelder, Guang Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInsulin resistanceInternal medicineMedicineEndocrinologyIntra-Abdominal FatBody mass indexMetabolic syndromeConfoundingObesityVisceral fatHomeostatic model assessmentPopulationTrunkBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body-fat distribution is a primary risk factor for insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. Visceral fat explains only a portion of this risk. The link between upper-body fat and insulin resistance is uncertain. Furthermore, upper-body fat is not clearly defined. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) can accurately quantify body fat. In this study, we explored the relationship between non-visceral upper-body adiposity and insulin resistance and other markers of metabolic syndrome. Fat proportions in the upper body, leg, and visceral regions were quantified by using DXA in 2547 adult Newfoundlanders aged 19 and older. Adjusting for remaining fat regions, we performed partial correlation analysis for each body region and insulin resistance defined by the Homeostatic Model of Assessment (HOMA). Similarly, partial correlation analysis was also performed between each fat region and other markers of metabolic syndrome, including high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), triglycerides (TG), body mass index (BMI), and blood pressure. Major confounding factors, including age, caloric intake, and physical activity, were statistically controlled by using partial correlation analysis. Interactions between sex, menopausal status, and medication status were also tested. Arm adiposity was correlated with HOMA-IR (R = 0.132, p < 0.001) and HOMA-β (R = 0.134, p < 0.001). Visceral adiposity was correlated with HOMA-IR (R = 0.230, p < 0.001) and HOMA-β (R = 0.160, p < 0.001). No significant correlation between non-visceral trunk adiposity and insulin resistance was found. Non-visceral trunk adiposity was negatively correlated with HDL in men (R = −0.110, p < 0.001) and women (R = −0.117, p < 0.001). Non-visceral trunk adiposity was correlated with TG (total: R = 0.079, p < 0.001; men: R = 0.105, p = 0.012; women: R = 0.078, p = 0.001). In menopausal women, leg adiposity was negatively correlated with HOMA-IR (R = −0.196, p < 0.001) and HOMA-β (R = −0.101, p = 0.012). Upper-body adiposity in the arms is an independent contributor to insulin resistance. Upper-body adiposity in the non-visceral trunk region is an independent contributor to metabolic syndrome. Leg adiposity is protective against metabolic syndrome in women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207