Evaluation of Nine Forms of Metabolic Syndrome Diagnosis as Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: An Analysis of Isolated and Combined Metabolic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a pathological condition varying according to the guidelines used, leading to ongoing debate on whether all these forms of defining MetS offer the same level of risk for developing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The aim of the study was: 1) to determine the prevalence of each type of MetS; 2) to assess the association of each type with CVDs over a 5-year follow-up period; and 3) to analyze whether each possible combination of MetS carries the same level of risk for developing CVD in the time above frame. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of a Peruvian cohort database. The dependent variable was the development of CVD. In contrast, the independent variable was MetS, defined based on nine diagnostic methods: Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII), International Diabetes Federation (IDF), World Health Organization (WHO), Joint Interim Statement (JIS), European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR), American Heart Association and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI), American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD), and International Lipid Information Bureau Latin America (ILIBLA). Results were presented as relative risk (RR). Results: The overall prevalence of MetS was 40.59%, while the 5-year incidence of CVD was 1.69%. The lowest prevalence was found with ALAD criteria (5.6%), while the highest was ILIBLA (37%). Diagnostic forms of MetS according to ILIBLA (RR = 5.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64 - 15.62), AHA/NHLBI (RR = 5.06; 95% CI: 1.64 - 15.62), JIS (RR = 3.66; 95% CI: 1.22 - 10.97), and API (RR = 2.83; 95% CI: 1.11 - 7.20) showed a risk of CVD. Additionally, hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and elevated blood pressure were found to be individually associated with the presence of CVD. In contrast, other factors, such as altered waist circumference (WC) and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL), are only associated with an increased risk in combination with other markers. Conclusions: Significant variations in the prevalence of MetS according to the definition used were revealed, as well as significant differences in the risk of CVD associated with different types of MetS. J Endocrinol Metab. 2024;14(4):194-206 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem945
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".