MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221119244 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.801582

Body Roundness Index and Waist–Hip Ratio Result in Better Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification: Results From a Large Chinese Cross-Sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4221119244 on OpenAlex
Ying Li, Yongmei He, Lin Yang, Qingqi Liu, Chao Li, Yaqin Wang, Pingting Yang, Jiangang Wang, Zhiheng Chen, Xin Huang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersXiangya Hospital, Central South UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceCentral South UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineWaistBody mass indexWaist–hip ratioWaist-to-height ratioCross-sectional studyBody Shape IndexIndex (typography)Physical therapyCardiologyInternal medicineComputer scienceClassification of obesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The appropriate optimal anthropometric indices and their thresholds within each BMI category for predicting those at a high risk of cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVDRFs) among the Chinese are still under dispute. Objectives: We aimed to identify the best indicators of CVDRFs and the optimal threshold within each BMI category among the Chinese. Methods: Between 2012 and 2020, a total of 500,090 participants were surveyed in Hunan, China. Six anthropometric indices including waist circumference (WC), a body shape index (ABSI), body roundness index (BRI), waist-hip ratio (WHR), hip circumference (HC), and waist-height ratio (WHtR) were evaluated in the present study. Considered CVDRFs included dyslipidaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The associations of anthropometrics with CVDRFs within each BMI category were evaluated through logistic regression models. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess the predictive abilities. Results: For the presence of at least one CVDRFs, the WHR had the highest AUROC in overweight [0.641 (95%CI:0.638, 0.644)] and obese [0.616 (95%CI:0.609, 0.623)] men. BRI had the highest AUROC in underweight [0.649 (95%CI:0.629, 0.670)] and normal weight [0.686 (95%CI:0.683, 0.690)] men. However, the BRI had the highest discrimination ability among women in all the BMI categories, with AUROC ranging from 0.641 to 0.727. In most cases, the discriminatory ability of WHtR was similar to BRI and was easier to calculate; therefore, thresholds of BRI, WHR, and WHtR for CVDRFs identification were all calculated. In men, BRI thresholds of 1.8, 3.0, 3.9, and 5.0, WHtR thresholds of 0.41, 0.48, 0.53, and 0.58, and WHR thresholds of 0.81, 0.88, 0.92, and 0.95 were identified as optimal thresholds across underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese populations, respectively. The corresponding BRI values in women were 1.9, 2.9, 4.0, and 5.2, respectively, and WHtR were 0.41, 0.48, 0.54, and 0.59, while the WHR values were 0.77, 0.83, 0.88, and 0.90. The recommended BRI, WHtR, or WHR cut-offs could not statistically differentiate high-risk CKD or hypercholesterolemia populations. Conclusions: We found that BRI and WHR were superior to other indices for predicting CVD risk factors, except CKD or hypercholesterolemia, among the Chinese.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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