Associations of abdominal obesity with different types of bone fractures in adults: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Findings on the association between abdominal obesity and hip fracture were summarized in a meta-analysis in 2017; however, no study has examined the dose-response association between abdominal fat indices and hip fracture. Also, we found no meta-analysis investigating other types of bone fractures including any vertebral fractures in relation to abdominal obesity. Therefore, the present systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies were conducted to examine the association between abdominal obesity and different types of bone fractures. A comprehensive literature search was done by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar until October 2021. In total, 23 articles from prospective cohort studies with a total sample size of 3,456,631 participants were included. During the follow-up periods ranging between 4 and 26 years, 137,989 cases of bone fracture were recorded. After comparing the highest and lowest categories of abdominal fat indices, the summary relative risks (RRs) of any, hip, and vertebral fractures were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.81-1.20), 1.09 (95% CI: 0.82-1.43), and 1.18 (95% CI: 1.05-1.33), respectively, indicating a significant positive association between abdominal obesity and risk of vertebral fracture. In the non-linear dose-response analysis, abdominal obesity based on the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was positively associated with an increased risk of hip fracture from 0.7 to 1.1 units of WHR. In the linear analysis, a 10 cm increase in waist circumference (WC) was associated with a 3% higher risk of vertebral fracture. We found no other dose-response association for other types of bone fractures. In conclusion, abdominal obesity may be associated with a higher risk of hip and vertebral fractures.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".