MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surrogate Adiposity Markers and Mortality

2023· article· en· W4386887384 on OpenAlexaff
Irfan Khan, Michael Chong, Ann Le, Pedrum Mohammadi‐Shemirani, Robert W. Morton, Christina Brinza, Michel Kiflen, Sukrit Narula, Loubna Akhabir, Shihong Mao, Katherine M. Morrison, Marie Pigeyre, Guillaume Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityImpactThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstitutePopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurrogate endpointMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Body mass index (BMI) is an easily obtained adiposity surrogate. However, there is variability in body composition and adipose tissue distribution between individuals with the same BMI, and there is controversy regarding the BMI associated with the lowest mortality risk. Objective: To evaluate which of BMI, fat mass index (FMI), and waist-to-hip (WHR) has the strongest and most consistent association with mortality. Design, Setting, and Participant: This cohort study used incident deaths from the UK Biobank (UKB; 2006-2022), which includes data from 22 clinical assessment centers across the United Kingdom. UKB British participants of British White ancestry (N = 387 672) were partitioned into a discovery cohort (n = 337 078) and validation cohort (n = 50 594), with the latter consisting of 25 297 deaths and 25 297 controls. The discovery cohort was used to derive genetically determined adiposity measures while the validation cohort was used for analyses. Exposure-outcome associations were analyzed through observational and mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. Exposures: BMI, FMI, and WHR. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause and cause-specific (cancer, cardiovascular disease [CVD], respiratory disease, or other causes) mortality. Results: There were 387 672 and 50 594 participants in our observational (mean [SD] age, 56.9 [8.0] years; 177 340 [45.9%] male, 210 332 [54.2%], female), and MR (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [6.2] years; 30 031 [59.3%] male, 20 563 [40.6%], female) analyses, respectively. Associations between measured BMI and FMI with all-cause mortality were J-shaped, whereas the association of WHR with all-cause mortality was linear using the hazard ratio (HR) scale (HR per SD increase of WHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.38-1.43]). Genetically determined WHR had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than BMI (odds ratio [OR] per SD increase of WHR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.32-1.72]; OR per SD increase of BMI, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.20-1.38]; P for heterogeneity = .02). This association was stronger in male than female participants (OR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.54-2.32]; P for heterogeneity = .01). Unlike BMI or FMI, the genetically determined WHR-all-cause mortality association was consistent irrespective of observed BMI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, WHR had the strongest and most consistent association with mortality irrespective of BMI. Clinical recommendations should consider focusing on adiposity distribution compared with mass.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations170
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207