High BMI and the risk for incident type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregated cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the role of obesity in type 1 diabetes development. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect and synthesize evidence regarding BMI and the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the association between BMI and incident type 1 diabetes. Databases were searched up to June 2022. Cohort studies were included reporting the association between overweight and/or obesity, as measured by BMI after age 2 years, with incident type 1 diabetes. Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. Risk estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The seven studies that classified BMI into categories were of high quality and involved 1,690,660 individuals and 1979 incident type 1 diabetes cases. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for type 1 diabetes was 1.35 (95% CI 0.93-1.97) among people with overweight (3 studies); 2.17 (95% CI 1.75-2.69) among people with obesity (5 studies); and 1·87 (95% CI 1.52-2.29) among people with overweight/obesity (two studies merged the categories). These point estimates persisted in sensitivity analyses that addressed the duration of follow-up, variability in baseline risk for incident type 1 diabetes, and potential misclassifications related to exposure or outcome definitions. People with overweight/obesity had a 2.55 (95% CI 1.11-5.86) greater risk for incident type 1 diabetes with positive islet autoantibodies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality observational cohort studies indicated an association between high BMI and the risk of type 1 diabetes, in a graded manner.
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 | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".