A Dyadic Growth Modeling Approach for Examining Associations between Weight Gain and Lung Function Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between body weight and lung function is complex. Using a dyadic multilevel linear modeling approach, treating body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)2) and lung function as paired, within-person outcomes, we tested the hypothesis that persons with more rapid increase in BMI exhibit more rapid decline in lung function, as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and their ratio (FEV1:FVC). Models included random intercepts and slopes and adjusted for sociodemographic and smoking-related factors. A sample of 9,115 adults with paired measurements of BMI and lung function taken at ≥3 visits were selected from a pooled set of 5 US population-based cohort studies (1983-2018; mean age at baseline = 46 years; median follow-up, 19 years). At age 46 years, average annual rates of change in BMI, FEV1, FVC, and FEV1:FVC ratio were 0.22 kg/m2/year,-25.50 mL/year,-21.99 mL/year, and-0.24%/year, respectively. Persons with steeper BMI increases had faster declines in FEV1 (r =-0.16) and FVC (r =-0.26) and slower declines in FEV1:FVC ratio (r = 0.11) (all P values < 0.0001). Results were similar in subgroup analyses. Residual correlations were negative (P < 0.0001), suggesting additional interdependence between BMI and lung function. Results show that greater rates of weight gain are associated with greater rates of lung function loss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".