<scp>BMI</scp> trajectories, morbidity, and mortality in England: a two‐step approach to estimating consequences of changes in <scp>BMI</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: BMI is known to have an association with morbidities and mortality. Many studies have argued that identifying health risks using single BMI measures has limitations, particularly in older adults, and that changes in BMI can help to identify risks. This study identifies distinct BMI trajectories and their association with the risks of a range of morbidities and mortality. METHODS: The English Longitudinal Study of Aging provides data on BMI, mortality, and morbidities between 1998 and 2015, sampled from adults over 50 years of age. This study uses a growth-mixture model and discrete-time survival analysis, combined using a two-step approach, which is novel in this setting, to the authors' knowledge. RESULTS: This study identified four trajectories: "stable overweight," "elevated BMI," "increasing BMI," and "decreasing BMI." No differences in mortality, cancer, or stroke risk were found between these trajectories. BMI trajectories were significantly associated with the risks of diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and heart problems. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the importance of looking at change in BMI alongside most recent BMI; BMI trajectories should be considered where possible when assessing health risks. The results suggest that established BMI thresholds should not be used in isolation to identify health risks, particularly in older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".