Association of body mass index and long-term mortality in patients from nationwide LIPIDOGRAM 2004–2015 cohort studies: no obesity paradox?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background An obesity paradox has been described in relation to adverse clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality) with lower body mass index (BMI). Aims We sought to evaluate the association between BMI and weight loss with long-term all-cause mortality in adult populations under the care of family physicians. Methods LIPIDOGRAM studies were conducted in primary care in Poland in 2004, 2006, and 2015 and enrolled a total of 45,615 patients. The LIPIDOGRAM Plus study included 1627 patients recruited in the LIPIDOGRAM 2004 and repeated measurements in 2006 edition. Patients were classified by BMI categories as underweight, normal weight, overweight and class I, II, or III (obesity). Follow-up data up to December 2021 were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Differences in all-cause mortality were analyzed using Kaplan‒Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results Of 45,615 patients, 10,987 (24.1%) were normal weight, 320 (0.7%) were underweight, 19,134 (41.9%) were overweight, and 15,174 (33.2%) lived with obesity. Follow-up was available for 44,620 patients (97.8%, median duration 15.3 years, 61.7% females). In the crude analysis, long-term all-cause mortality was lowest for the normal-weight group (14%) compared with other categories. After adjusting for comorbidities, the highest risk of death was observed for the class III obesity and underweight categories (hazard ratio, HR 1.79, 95% CI [1.55–2.05] and HR 1.57, 95% CI [1.22–2.04]), respectively. The LIPIDOGRAM Plus analysis revealed that a decrease in body weight (by 5 and 10%) over 2 years was associated with a significantly increased risk of death during long-term follow-up—HR 1.45 (95% CI 1.05–2.02, p = 0.03) and HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.02–2.74, p < 0.001). Patients who experienced weight loss were older and more burdened with comorbidities. Conclusions Being underweight, overweight or obese is associated with a higher mortality risk in a population of patients in primary care. Patients who lost weight were older and more burdened with cardiometabolic diseases, which may suggest unintentional weight loss, and were at higher risk of death in the long-term follow-up. In nonsmoking patients without comorbidities, the lowest mortality was observed in those with a BMI < 25 kg/m 2 , and no U-curve relationship was observed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".