Performance of Body Fat Percentage, Fat Mass Index and Body Mass Index for Detecting Cardiometabolic Outcomes in Brazilian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is a recognized risk factor for the development of cardiometabolic outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate anthropometric and body composition indicators used for its diagnosis. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of body fat percentage (BF%), fat mass index (FMI) and body mass index (BMI) for detecting cardiometabolic outcomes in adults. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving adults at 30 years of age from Pelotas, RS (n = 3517) and at 37–39 years from Ribeirão Preto, SP (n = 1696). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the cut-off points for predicting cardiometabolic risk factors, including altered blood pressure, blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDDL-c), C-reactive protein and glycated hemoglobin. The cut-off points of BF% ranged from 25.2 to 27.8 in men and from 37.4 to 39.7 in women at 30 years, and from 26.1 to 27.8 in men and from 38.5 to 42.2 in women at 37–39 years. For FMI (kg/m2), the cut-off points ranged from 6.3 to 7.5 in men and from 9.5 to 10.8 in women at 30 years, and from 7.3 to 7.8 in men and from 10.2 to 12.2 in women at 37–39 years. The BMI cut-off points (kg/m2) ranged from 26.3 to 27.3 in men and from 25.4 to 27.2 in women at 30 years, and from 28.3 to 29.0 in men and from 27.2 to 29.6 in women at 37–39 years. The areas under the curve were similar for the three indicators, ranging from 0.523 to 0.746. BMI showed a performance similar to that of the body fat-based indicators in identifying cardiometabolic outcomes. The cut-off points of the three indicators showed acceptable discriminatory power in subjects with cardiometabolic risk factors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".