Exploring New Tools to Risk Classification Among Adults with Several Degrees of Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pandemic of obesity worldwide has been recognized as a very important challenge. Within its complexity the identification of higher risk patients becomes essential since it seems unsustainable trying to offer access to treatment to all people with obesity. Several new approaches have recently been presented as important tools for risk stratification. This research applied some of these tools in a cross-sectional study involving adults with obesity classes I, II, III and super obesity. The participants had their cardiometabolic risk profile assessed. The study included adults with obesity, aged 18 to 50 years (n=404) who were evaluated for anthropometric, body composition, hemodynamic, physical fitness and biochemical assessments. These variables were used to identify the prevalence of risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases according to the classes of obesity, by gender and age group. The results showed a high prevalence of risk factors, especially among the upper classes of obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2) using single parameters as the waist circumference with almost 90% above the cut-off point. But there were also smaller numbers as the Glycated Hemoglobin whose prevalence was around 30%. Indexes like the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) had the highest prevalence, with 100% of the male participants identified with increased risk for cardiovascular diseases.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".