Integrating the Thrifty Genotype and Evolutionary Mismatch Hypotheses to understand variation in cardiometabolic disease risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 60 years ago, James Neel proposed the Thrifty Genotype Hypothesis to explain the widespread prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Western, industrial contexts. This hypothesis posits that variants linked to conservative energy usage and increased fat deposition would have been favored throughout human evolution due to the advantages they could provide during periods of resource limitation. However, in industrial environments, these variants instead produce an increased risk of obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and related health issues. This hypothesis has been popular and impactful, with thousands of citations, many ongoing debates, and several spin-off theories in biomedicine, evolutionary biology, and anthropology. However, despite great attention, the applicability and utility of the Thrifty Genotype Hypothesis (TGH) to modern human health remains, in our opinion, unresolved. To move research in this area forward, we first discuss the original formulation of the TGH and its critiques. Second, we trace the TGH to updated hypotheses that are currently at the forefront of the evolutionary medicine literature-namely, the Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis. Third, we lay out empirical predictions for updated hypotheses and evaluate them against the current literature. Finally, we discuss study designs that could be fruitful for filling current knowledge gaps; here, we focus on partnerships with subsistence-level groups undergoing lifestyle transitions, and we present data from an ongoing study with the Orang Asli of Malaysia to illustrate this point. Overall, we hope this synthesis will guide new empirical research aimed at understanding how the human evolutionary past interacts with our modern environments to influence cardiometabolic health.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".