The Influence of Obesity on Bone Health in Post-COVID-19 Recovery- Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The ongoing repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic include potentially deleterious impacts on bone health. Aim: This research aimed to ascertain the effects of COVID-19 on the bone health of obese and non-obese Indian individuals. Methods: We executed a case-control study enrolling individuals who recovered from COVID-19. Participants were stratified into obese and non-obese groups based on their BMI. Comprehensive assessments encompassed anthropometric evaluations, laboratory tests, and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Results: From April to July 2022, we enrolled obese (n = 27, mean BMI = 30.54 ± 4.51 kg/m 2) and non-obese (n = 23, mean BMI = 21.97 ± 2.20 kg/m 2) individuals. The cohort’s average age was 36.08 ± 15.81 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.6:1. There was a difference in BMD, especially at the total hip, between the two groups. BMD at the spine (L1-L4), the neck of the femur, and ultra-distal radius were consistent across both groups. Weight exhibited a significant positive correlation with BMD at L1-L4 (r = 0.40, p = 0.003) and the left femur total (r = 0.27, p = 0.001). Haemoglobin levels were lower in the obese group compared to their non-obese counterparts (12.3 ± 2.0 vs 13.6 ± 1.9, p = 0.01). Multivariate analysis underscored weight as a crucial predictor for BMD at the spine (L1-L4, p = 0.003) and total hip ( p = 0.001). Conclusion: Even with advanced age, obese post-COVID-19 individuals demonstrate a higher bone mineral density (BMD) at the hip than non-obese subjects. Keywords: COVID-19, obesity, bone mineral density, osteopenia, fracture risk
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 | 0.002 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".