Body Composition and Metabolomics in the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is correlated with many biomarkers, but the extent to which these correlate with underlying body composition is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to 1) describe/compare distinct contributions of fat/lean mass with BMI-metabolite correlations and 2) identify novel metabolite biomarkers of fat/lean mass. METHODS: The Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention Trial was a 2-center randomized trial of healthy, inactive, postmenopausal women (n = 304). BMI (in kg/m2) was calculated using weight and height, whereas DXA estimated fat/lean mass. Ultra-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry measured relative concentrations of serum metabolite concentrations. We estimated partial Pearson correlations between 1052 metabolites and BMI, adjusting for age, smoking, and site. Fat mass index (FMI; kg/m2) and lean mass index (LMI; kg/m2) correlations were estimated similarly, with mutual adjustment to evaluate independent effects. RESULTS: Using a Bonferroni-corrected α level <4.75 × 10-5, we observed 53 BMI-correlated metabolites (|r| = 0.24-0.42). Of those, 21 were robustly correlated with FMI (|r| > 0.20), 25 modestly (0.10 ≤ |r| ≤ 0.20), and 7 virtually null (|r| < 0.10). Ten of 53 were more strongly correlated with LMI than with FMI. Examining non-BMI-correlated metabolites, 6 robustly correlated with FMI (|r| = 0.24-0.31) and 2 with LMI (r = 0.25-0.26). For these, correlations for fat and lean mass were in opposing directions compared with BMI-correlated metabolites, in which correlations were mostly in the same direction. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate how a thorough evaluation of the components of fat and lean mass, along with BMI, provides a more accurate assessment of the associations between body composition and metabolites than BMI alone. Such an assessment makes evident that some metabolites correlated with BMI predominantly reflect lean mass rather than fat, and some metabolites related to body composition are not correlated with BMI. Correctly characterizing these relations is important for an accurate understanding of how and why obesity is associated with disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".