MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364368780 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1124468

Trends in elevated waist-to-height ratio and waist circumference in U.S. adults and their associations with cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, 1999–2018

2023· article· en· W4364368780 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Yang, H. J. Yang, Martin M. H. Wong, Juwel Rana, Qinghua Yang, Vicky Chan, Moyukh Shabon Khan, Aimin Yang, Kenneth Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaist-to-height ratioMedicineWaistNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyDemographyOdds ratioDiabetes mellitusPopulationObesityLogistic regressionInternal medicineEnvironmental healthEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Although waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) has established association with cardiometabolic disease, the trend of changes in elevated WHtR among general population have not been examined adequately. Methods: This study examined the prevalence of elevated WHtR and waist circumference (WC) and their trends over time using Joinpoint regression models among adults who participated in the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (U.S. NHANES) 1999-2018. We performed weighted logistic regression to identify the association between central obesity subtypes and the prevalence of comorbidities, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Results: The prevalence of elevated WHtR has increased from 74.8% in 1999-2000 to 82.7% in 2017-2018 while elevated WC also increased from 46.9% in 1999-2000 to 60.3% in 2017-2018. Men, older adults, former smokers, and people with lower education levels were more likely to have elevated WHtR. A total of 25.5% of American adults had normal WC but elevated WHtR, and they had a significantly higher chance of suffering from diabetes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.06 [1.66, 2.55]), hypertension (OR = 1.75 [1.58, 1.93]) and CVD (OR = 1.32 [1.11, 1.57]). Discussion: In conclusion, the burden of elevated WHtR and WC have been increasing among U.S. adults throughout the years, and the changes have been more significant across most subgroups. It is also notable that approximately a quarter of the population had normal WC but elevated WHtR, which had increased likelihood of having cardiometabolic diseases, especially diabetes. Future clinical practices should pay more attention to this subgroup of the population with overlooked health risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207