MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397022065 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae239

Obesity paradox can be a fact: unveiling the hidden role of adipose tissue

2024· article· en· W4397022065 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jawad H. Butt, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdipose tissueObesityInternal medicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary refers to ‘Anthropometric measures and adverse outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: revisiting the obesity paradox’, by J.H. Butt et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad083 and the discussion piece ‘Obesity paradox can be a fact: unveiling the hidden role of adipose tissue’, by D.-H. Lee, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae236. Duk-Hee Lee suggests that because patients with a body mass index of ≥35 kg/m2 (or the highest waist-to-height ratio category) did not exhibit an elevated mortality risk, as might have been expected, there may still be an obesity survival paradox in heart failure. The hypothesis made is that adipose tissue might serve as a store for toxins that would otherwise poison mitochondria, i.e. that adipose tissue has a protective effect. Indeed, it is postulated that the release of these toxins as a consequence of weight loss might be harmful. While intriguing, we know of no clinical data supporting this hypothesis, and, notably, greater obesity was associated with a higher risk of worsening heart failure. The absence of an association with a higher risk of death may simply be a matter of time, with such a consequence not yet apparent during the relatively short follow-up period in the current study. J.H.B. reports advisory board honoraria from Bayer; consultant honoraria from Novartis and AstraZeneca; and travel grants from AstraZeneca. J.J.V.M. reports payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GSK, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis; personal consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharma, and River 2 Renal Corporation; and personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharma Ltd, Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica Health, Intas Pharma, J.B. Chemicals & Pharma Ltd, Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma, The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy. He is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207