Association between Body Mass Index and Mortality in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The association between body mass index (BMI) and mortality in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) has been poorly examined and has never been systematically reviewed. This meta-analysis investigated the all-cause mortality risk for each BMI category among patients with T1DM. Methods: ). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: Three prospective studies involving 23,407 adults were included. The underweight group was shown to have a 3.4 times greater risk of mortality than the normal-weight group (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67 to 6.85). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in mortality risk between the normal-weight group and the overweight group (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.22) or the obese group (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.15), possibly due to the heterogeneous results of these BMI categories among the included studies. Conclusion: Underweight patients with T1DM had a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality than their normal-weight counterparts. Overweight and obese patients showed heterogeneous risks across the studies. Further prospective studies on patients with T1DM are required to establish weight management guidelines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".