Metabolically Healthy Obese (MHO) in Adults and Adolescents: Where We Are
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A unique subset of obese individuals who appear to be protected from the development of metabolic disturbances has been identified in clinical practice and is termed metabolically healthy but obese (MHO).The true prevalence of the MHO phenotype varies widely from approximately 6% to75% of obese adults and from 6-36% in obese adolescents.Currently, there are no clear accepted criteria on the definition of MHO.The strong effect of pubertal status on metabolic health cannot be excluded in obese adolescents.To clarify this definition we need the collaboration of the scientific community.Numerous possible mechanisms underlying MHO have been suggested, including adipose tissue distribution and inflammation.The current evidence cannot confirm that MHO subjects are permanently protected from the risk of obesityassociated metabolic complications.This transition might be minimized by appropriate lifestyle habits.No standard practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of MHO can be proposed to clinicians.A decent attitude would be to regularly monitor CVD risk factors in obese adult and adolescent MHO patients especially elevated triglycerides, glycaemia, HOMA and C-reactive protein as well as low HDL-C.A special surveillance should be applied to prevent any increase in waist circumference (WC) as the MHO phenotype may be maintained by promoting lower WC and by the prevention of any further weight gain.Identifying obese patients with this protective profile could help the medical community determine which part of the obese patients need to be only periodically observed and which need to have early therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".