Prevalence of Metabolically-Obese Normal-Weight Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity causes the loss of body homeostasis and predisposes to the development of disease; some individuals present alterations described even having a normal body mass index (BMI), and these are called thin metabolically obese. The objective was to carry out a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of metabolically-obese normal-weight (MONW) worldwide. Methods: The search for studies was conducted from May to June 2022 in the EMBASE, PubMed, WOS, and Scopus databases. The purification and ordering of data were carried out using the Excel 2016 program, later a meta-analysis with the Stata version 17 program. Results: A total of 408,251 people with normal BMI were identified, of whom 78,054 had a metabolic disorder, and the prevalence after the meta-analysis was 26.78% (95% confidence interval: 18.45 - 36.03) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 99.86%). Conclusion: The findings of the systematic review confirm a high prevalence of MONW worldwide. J Endocrinol Metab. 2023;13(3):104-113 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem882
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".