Triglyceridemic Waist Phenotypes as Risk Factors for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Triglyceride waist phenotypes, which combine high triglyceride levels and central obesity, have recently emerged as an area of interest in metabolic disease research. Objective: To conduct a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis to determine if triglyceride waist phenotypes are a risk factor for T2DM. Materials: SR with meta-analysis of cohort studies. The search was conducted in four databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Participants were classified into four groups, based on triglyceride level and waist circumference (WC): 1) Normal WC and normalConduct triglyceride level (NWNT); 2) Normal WC and high triglyceride level (NWHT), 3) Altered WC and normal triglyceride level (EWNT) and 4) Altered WC and high triglyceride level (EWHT). For the meta-analysis, only studies whose measure of association were presented as Hazard ratio (HR) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) were used. Results: Compared to people with NWHT, a statistically significant association was found for those with NWHT (HR: 2.65; CI95% 1.77–3.95), EWNT (HR: 2.54; CI95% 2.05–3.16) and EWHT (HR: 4.41; CI95% 2.82–6.89). Conclusions: There is a clear association between triglyceride waist phenotypes and diabetes, according to this SR and meta-analysis. Although central obesity and high triglyceride levels are associated with a higher risk of the aforementioned disease, their combination appears to pose an even greater risk. Therefore, in the clinical setting, it is important to consider this when assessing the risk of diabetes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".