MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391563635 · doi:10.2196/48120

Association of Visceral Obesity Indices With Incident Diabetic Retinopathy in Patients With Diabetes: Prospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4391563635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiaheng Chen, Yuting Li, Zimin Niu, Zhanpeng He, Yao Jie Xie, José Hernández, Wenyong Huang, Haoxiang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersState Key Laboratory of OphthalmologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusDiabetic retinopathyHazard ratioInternal medicineCohort studyProportional hazards modelType 2 diabetesCohortAnthropometryObesityEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Visceral adipose tissue plays an active role in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes and vascular dysfunction. The lipid accumulation product (LAP), visceral adiposity index (VAI), and Chinese VAI (CVAI) have been proposed as simple and validated surrogate indices for measuring visceral adipose tissue. However, the evidence from prospective studies on the associations between these novel indices of visceral obesity and diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains scant. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the longitudinal associations of LAP, VAI, and CVAI with incident DR in Chinese patients with diabetes. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in Guangzhou in southern China. We collected baseline data between November 2017 and July 2020, while on-site follow-up visits were conducted annually until January 2022. The study participants consisted of 1403 patients with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes, referred from primary care, who were free of DR at baseline. The LAP, VAI, and CVAI levels were calculated by sex-specific equations based on anthropometric and biochemical parameters. DR was assessed using 7-field color stereoscopic fundus photographs and graded according to the modified Airlie House Classification scheme. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to estimate the hazard ratios with 95% CIs. Restricted cubic spline curves were fitted to examine the dose-response relationship between the 3 indices of visceral obesity and new-onset DR. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the potential effect modifiers. RESULTS: The mean age of study participants was 64.5 (SD 7.6) years, and over half (816/1403, 58.2%) were female. During a median follow-up of 2.13 years, 406 DR events were observed. A 1-SD increment in LAP, VAI, or CVAI was consistently associated with increased risk for new-onset DR, with a multivariable‑adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.41; P=.001), 1.22 (95% CI 1.09-1.36; P<.001), and 1.48 (95% CI 1.19-1.85; P=.001), respectively. Similar patterns were observed across tertiles in LAP (P for trend=.001), VAI (P for trend<.001), and CVAI (P for trend=.009). Patients in the highest tertile of LAP, VAI, and CVAI had an 84%, 86%, and 82% higher hazard of DR, respectively, compared to those in the lowest tertile. A nonlinear dose-response relationship with incident DR was noted for LAP and VAI (both P for nonlinearity<.05), but not for CVAI (P for nonlinearity=.51). We did not detect the presence of effect modification by age, sex, duration of diabetes, BMI, or comorbidity (all P for interaction>.10). CONCLUSIONS: Visceral obesity, as measured by LAP, VAI, or CVAI, is independently associated with increased risk for new-onset DR in Chinese patients with diabetes. Our findings may suggest the necessity of incorporating regular monitoring of visceral obesity indices into routine clinical practice to enhance population-based prevention for DR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207