Association of Later-Life Weight Changes With Survival to Ages 90, 95, and 100: The Women’s Health Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Associations of weight changes and intentionality of weight loss with longevity are not well described. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from the Women's Health Initiative (N = 54 437; 61-81 years), we examined associations of weight changes and intentionality of weight loss with survival to ages 90, 95, and 100. Weight was measured at baseline, year 3, and year 10, and participants were classified as having weight loss (≥5% decrease from baseline), weight gain (≥5% increase from baseline), or stable weight (<5% change from baseline). Participants reported intentionality of weight loss at year 3. RESULTS: A total of 30 647 (56.3%) women survived to ≥90 years. After adjustment for relevant covariates, 3-year weight loss of ≥5% vs stable weight was associated with lower odds of survival to ages 90 (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71), 95 (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.60-0.71), and 100 (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78). Compared to intentional weight loss, unintentional weight loss was more strongly associated with lower odds of survival to age 90 (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94 and OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55, respectively). Three-year weight gain of ≥5% vs stable weight was not associated with survival to age 90, 95, or 100. The pattern of results was similar among normal weight, overweight, and obese women in body mass index (BMI)-stratified analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss of ≥5% vs stable weight was associated with lower odds of longevity, more strongly for unintentional weight loss than for intentional weight loss. Potential inaccuracy of self-reported intentionality of weight loss and residual confounding were limitations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".