Associations of general and central adiposity with hypertension and cardiovascular disease among South Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The relevance of measures of general and central adiposity for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks in populations of European descent is well established. However, it is less well characterised in South Asian populations, who characteristically manifest larger waist circumferences (WC) for equivalent body mass index (BMI). This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an overview of the literature on the association of different anthropometric measures with CVD risk among South Asians. Methodology MEDLINE and Embase were searched from 1990 to the present for studies in South Asian populations investigating associations of two or more adiposity measures with CVD. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on the associations of BMI, WC and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) with blood pressure, hypertension and CVD. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results Titles and abstracts were screened for 7327 studies, yielding 147 full-text reviews. The final sample (n=30) included 2 prospective, 5 case-control and 23 cross-sectional studies. Studies reported generally higher risks of hypertension and CVD at higher adiposity levels. The pooled mean difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) per 5 kg/m 2 higher BMI was 3 mmHg (2.90 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.50)) and 6 mmHg (6.31 (95% CI 4.81 to 7.81) per 13 cm larger WC. The odds ratio (OR) of hypertension per 5 kg/m 2 higher BMI was 1.33 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.51), 1.45 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.98) per 13 cm larger WC and 1.22 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.41) per 0.1-unit larger WHR. Pooled risk of CVD for BMI-defined overweight versus healthy-weight was 1.65 (95% CI 1.55 to 1.75) and 1.48 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.80) and 2.51 (95% CI 0.94 to 6.69) for normal versus large WC and WHR, respectively. Study quality was average with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions Measures of both general and central adiposity had similar, strong positive associations with the risk of CVD in South Asians. Larger prospective studies are required to clarify which measures of body composition are more informative for targeted CVD primary prevention in this population.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".