Increased odds of having the metabolic syndrome with greater fat‐free mass: counterintuitive results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well established that body composition influences metabolic health, but emerging data are conflicting with the largely purported idea that a large fat-free mass (FFM) has a protective effect on health. A potential explanation for these discrepancies is the way FFM is represented. The first objective is to determine the association between the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and FFM when the latter was represented in three different ways: 1-absolute FFM; 2-relative to squared height (FFMi); and 3-relative to body weight (FFM%). The second objective is to assess the impact of FFM on the relative risk of having the MetS after taking fat mass, physical activity, and sociodemographic variables into account. METHODS: ) were used to calculate the odds ratios of having the MetS independently of FM, physical activity levels, and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: The prevalence of MetS decreased with increasing quartiles of whole-body FFM% (Q1: 40%; Q4: 10%) but grew with increasing quartiles of absolute FFM (Q1: 13%; Q4: 40%) and FFMi (Q1: 10%; Q4: 44%). Similar results were observed for appendicular and truncal FFM. The odds ratios of having the MetS, independently of fat mass, physical activity, and sociodemographic variables, were significantly greater in the fourth quartile of FFMi when compared with the first quartiles of each specific subgroup [Q4 vs. Q1: younger men: 4.16 (1.99-8.68); younger women: 5.74 (2.46-13.39); older men: 1.98 (1.22-3.22); older women: 2.88 (1.69-4.90); all P ≤ 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the notion that the representation of FFM significantly influences its association with MetS and that a larger FFM, whether absolute or relative to height, is associated with alterations in cardiometabolic health.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".