MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P324: Abdominal Visceral Adiposity and Liver Fat in Relation to Sex-Related Differences in Cardiometabolic Risk Profile: The INSPIRE ME IAA Study

2012· article· en· W4252742075 on OpenAlexaff
Julie‐Anne Nazare, Jessica Smith, Anne‐Laure Borel, Steven M. Haffner, Beverley Balkau, Robert Ross, Christine Massien, Natalie Alméras, Jean‐Pierre Després

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdiponectinWaistInternal medicineType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyTriglycerideFatty liverMetabolic syndromeDiabetes mellitusInsulin resistanceObesityGastroenterologyCholesterolDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Sex differences in the cardiovascular risk profile are well established. The objectives of the present analyses were 1) to characterize sex differences in visceral adiposity (VA) and estimated liver fat content assessed by computed tomography (CT) and in the cardiometabolic risk (CMR) profile in a large international multiethnic cohort; 2) to determine whether differences between men and women in CMR factors remain after controlling for VA and/or liver fat. Methods: In the International Study of Prediction of Intra-abdominal adiposity and its Relationship with cardioMEtabolic risk/Intra-Abdominal Adiposity (INSPIRE ME IAA), 297 primary care physicians, cardiologists, endocrinologists/diabetologists recruited 4504 patients from 29 countries. VA and liver attenuation (inversely correlated to liver fat) were assessed by CT. Cardiometabolic risk factors (triglyceride (TG), HDL-C, Apolipoprotein B (ApoB), HOMA, 2h-glucose (OGTT), adiponectin, C-Reactive Protein (CRP)) were assessed using standardized methods. The present cross-sectional analyses were performed in 1193 men and 1214 women free of type 2 diabetes. Results: Whereas mean BMI was similar in women and men (27.5±0.1 vs 27.5±0.1 kg/m2), men had higher waist circumference (98.1±0.4 vs 89.6±0.4 cm), higher VA (165±2 vs 131±2 cm2) and lower liver attenuation (54.9±0.3 vs 57.4±0.3 HU) (p<0.0001 for all) than women. Men displayed higher TG and HOMA but lower HDLc, CRP and adiponectin levels (p<0.001 for all) than women. In both sexes, VA and liver fat were significantly correlated positively with CMR variables: TG, HOMA and CRP and negatively with HDLc and adiponectin (p<0.05 simple regression analysis). In multiple regression analyses, VA and liver attenuation independently affected CMR variables. Sex differences in TG were eliminated after adjustment for VA or both variables simultaneously but HDLc remained higher in women even after such adjustment. HOMA was higher in women when adjusted for VA or for both variables and similar to men when adjusted for liver attenuation. Being not different between sexes before adjustment, 2h-glucose was higher in women when controlling for VA/liver fat. Adiponectin remained higher in women after all adjustments. Sex differences in CRP were magnified after adjustment for VA/liver fat and remained higher in women. Conclusion: In this large standardized international CT-imaging/cardiometabolic study, substantial sex differences in abdominal adiposity/liver fat and CMR factors were observed, with men presenting an overall more deteriorated CMR profile than women. Controlling for VA and liver fat was not sufficient to abolish sex differences in all inflammatory, insulin sensitivity or lipid factors.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→