Relationship between obesity severity, metabolic status and cardiovascular disease in obese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Evidence about the associations between obesity severity, metabolic status and risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults with obesity remains limited. Methods The study included 109,301 adults with obesity free of prior CVD based on the UK Biobank cohort. Metabolic status was categorized into metabolically healthy obesity (MHO; free of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes) and metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO). Obesity severity was classified into three levels: class I (body mass index of 30.0–34.9 kg/m2), II (35.0–39.9) and III (≥40.0). Cox proportional hazards models were used for analyses. Results There were 8059 incident CVD events during a median follow‐up of 8.1 years. MUO was significantly associated with a 74% increased CVD risk compared with MHO (HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.62–1.83). There was a significant interaction between obesity severity and metabolic status on an additive scale regarding CVD risk. When taking class I obesity as reference, class II was nonsignificantly associated with an increased risk of CVD in the MHO group (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.90–1.27), while class III was significantly related to increased risks of CVD (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.12–1.96). In the MUO group, both classes II and III were significantly related to increased risks of CVD. Significant subgroup effects of age (p = .009) and sex (p = .047) were observed among participants with MUO but not in the MHO group. Conclusions Both elevated obesity severity and MUO were significantly associated with increased risks of CVD in adults with obesity, while metabolic status could modify the relationship between obesity severity and CVD risk. More research is needed to further clarify the relationship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".