MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311779175 · doi:10.1016/j.ajcnut.2022.11.003

Low calf circumference adjusted for body mass index is associated with prolonged hospital stay

2022· article· en· W4311779175 on OpenAlexaff
Iasmin Matias de Sousa, Ana Paula Trussardi Fayh, Júlia Lima, Marı́a Cristina González, Carla M. Prado, Flávia Moraes Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexConfidence intervalOdds ratioProspective cohort studyInternal medicineCohortCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Calf circumference (CC) is of emerging importance because of its practicality, high correlation with skeletal muscle, and potential predictive value for adverse outcomes. However, the accuracy of CC is influenced by adiposity. CC adjusted for BMI (BMI-adjusted CC) has been proposed to counteract this problem. However, its accuracy to predict outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predictive validity of BMI-adjusted CC in hospital settings. METHODS: ) of 25-29.9, 30-39.9, and ≥40, respectively. Low CC was defined as ≤34 cm for males and ≤33 cm for females. Primary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS) and in-hospital death, and secondary outcomes were hospital readmissions and mortality within 6 mo after discharge. RESULTS: We included 554 patients (55.2 ± 14.9 y, 52.9% men). Among them, 25.3% presented with low CC, whereas 60.6% had BMI-adjusted low CC. In-hospital death occurred in 13 patients (2.3%), and median LOS was 10.0 (5.0-18.0) d. Within 6 mo from discharge, 43 patients (8.2%) died, and 178 (34.0%) were readmitted to the hospital. BMI-adjusted low CC was an independent predictor of LOS ≥ 10 d (odds ratio = 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.18, 2.43], but it was not associated with the other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: BMI-adjusted low CC was identified in more than 60% of hospitalized patients and was an independent predictor of longer LOS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207