MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380422317 · doi:10.1111/obr.13588

Associations between body mass index and all‐cause mortality: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4380422317 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha Wiebe, Anita Lloyd, Ellen Crumley, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexMeta-analysisConfidence intervalInternal medicineHyperinsulinemiaObesityDemographyInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Fasting insulin and c‐reactive protein confound the association between mortality and body mass index. An increase in fat mass may mediate the associations between hyperinsulinemia, hyperinflammation, and mortality. The objective of this study was to describe the “average” associations between body mass index and the risk of mortality and to explore how adjusting for fasting insulin and markers of inflammation might modify the association of BMI with mortality. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies published in 2020. Studies with adult participants where BMI and vital status was assessed were included. BMI was required to be categorized into groups or parametrized as non‐first order polynomials or splines. All‐cause mortality was regressed against mean BMI squared within seven broad clinical populations. Study was modeled as a random intercept. β coefficients and 95% confidence intervals are reported along with estimates of mortality risk by BMIs of 20, 30, and 40 kg/m2. Bubble plots with regression lines are drawn, showing the associations between mortality and BMI. Splines results were summarized. There were 154 included studies with 6,685,979 participants. Only five (3.2%) studies adjusted for a marker of inflammation, and no studies adjusted for fasting insulin. There were significant associations between higher BMIs and lower mortality risk in cardiovascular (unadjusted β −0.829 [95% CI −1.313, −0.345] and adjusted β −0.746 [95% CI −1.471, −0.021]), Covid‐19 (unadjusted β −0.333 [95% CI −0.650, −0.015]), critically ill (adjusted β −0.550 [95% CI −1.091, −0.010]), and surgical (unadjusted β −0.415 [95% CI −0.824, −0.006]) populations. The associations for general, cancer, and non‐communicable disease populations were not significant. Heterogeneity was very large (I2 ≥ 97%). The role of obesity as a driver of excess mortality should be critically re‐examined, in parallel with increased efforts to determine the harms of hyperinsulinemia and chronic inflammation.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.025
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.389
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207