MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3202722051 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v13n11p25

How Well Does Body Mass Index (BMI) Predict Undiagnosed Hypertension and Diabetes in Indonesian Adults Community Population?

2021· article· en· W3202722051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rofingatul Mubasyiroh, Nunik Kusumawardani, Rika Rachmalina, Prisca Petty Arfines, Tities Puspita, Sudikno Sudikno

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexDiabetes mellitusReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionAnthropometryPopulationCross-sectional studyInternal medicineObesityDemographyEndocrinologyEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that Body Mass Index (BMI) cut-off was related to non-communicable diseases. This study aimed to give the latest evidence related to the accuracy of BMI cut-off towards undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes in the Indonesian population. METHODS: This was A cross-sectional study that involved data of the 2018 national population-based health survey, with the samples were 15,516 male and female populations aged between 19 years old and above. This study only included those claimed to have never been diagnosed as suffering from diabetes and hypertension by health workers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to assess the optimal BMI cut-off. The logistic regression was performed to assess the association of BMI on undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes controlled by several variables. RESULTS: The average BMI sample was 24 kg/m2 (SD = 4.6 kg/m2. The proportion of undiagnosed hypertension was 36.9%, and 12.3% for the proportion of undiagnosed diabetes. According to the ROC, the result shows BMI was more sensitive to hypertension conditions compared to diabetes. BMI cut-off points at 23.9 kg/m2 (AUC=0.59;Se=64.3%;Sp=53.4%) was the optimum value to predict hypertension and 24.9 kg/m2 (AUC=0.55;Se=53.1%;Sp=56.4%) was the optimum for diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the optimal AUC cut-off points for BMI which is around 0.5, BMI needs to be reconsidered as an anthropometric index in predicting undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes. And an assessment can be made using other anthropometric indices, such as waist circumference to predict undiagnosed hypertension and diabetes.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→