Adiposity, type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: Use and abuse of the body mass index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide prevalence of individuals with an elevated body weight has increased steadily over the past five decades. Billions of research dollars have been invested to improve our understanding of the causes and consequences of having an elevated body weight. All this knowledge has, however, failed to influence populational body weight trajectories of most countries around the world. Research on the definition of "obesity" has also evolved. Body mass index (BMI), the most commonly used tool to make its diagnosis, has major limitations. In this review article, we will highlight evidence from observational studies, genetic association studies and randomized clinical trials that have shown the remarkable inter-individual differences in the way humans store energy as body fat. Increasing evidence also suggests that, as opposed to weight inclusive, lifestyle-based approaches, weight-centric approaches advising people to simply eat less and move more are not sustainable for most people for long-term weight loss and maintenance. It is time to recognize that this outdated approach may have produced more harm than good. On the basis of pathophysiological, genetic and clinical evidence presented in this review, we propose that it may be time to shift away from the traditional clinical approach, which is BMI-centric. Rather, emphasis should be placed on actionable lifestyle-related risk factors aiming at improving overall diet quality and increasing physical activity level in the general 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".