Association of magnitude of weight loss and weight variability with mortality and major cardiovascular events among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight management is strongly promoted for overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) by current guidelines. However, the prognostic impact of weight loss achieved without behavioural intervention on the mortality and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in diabetic patients is still contested. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that investigated the association of weight loss or weight variability with mortality and CV outcomes. Results of studies that measured weight loss by percentage weight loss from baseline and stratified it as > 10% and 5-10% or studies that computed weight variability were pooled using random effects model. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirty eligible studies were included in the systematic review and 13 of these were included in the meta-analysis. Large weight loss (> 10%) was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 2.27, 95% CI 1.51-3.42), composite of major CV events (pooled HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38-2.12) and CV mortality (pooled HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27-1.76) among T2DM patients. Moderate weight loss showed no significant association with all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41) or CV outcomes (pooled HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.33). Weight variability was associated with high hazard of all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.52-1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Large weight loss and large fluctuations in weight are potential markers of increased risk of mortality and CV events in T2DM patients. Maintaining a stable weight may have positive impact in these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".