Association of Cellulitis With Obesity: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Cellulitis is a bacterial skin infection that tends to recur. Previous studies have identified several risk factors that may contribute to its pathogenesis. Obesity is an increasingly prevalent worldwide disease that has been associated with skin and soft tissue infections. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the association of cellulitis with obesity. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases were searched for the relevant studies from the inception of each respective database to March 13, 2021. Case-control, cross-sectional, or cohort studies that examined the odds or risk of increased BMI in patients with cellulitis were included. This study was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the risk of bias in included studies. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> In total, 9 case-control studies were included in our quantitative meta-analysis with a total of 68,148 study participants. A significant association was found between cellulitis and obesity (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.67, 95% CI 1.91-3.71). No significant association was observed between cellulitis and being overweight (pooled OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.99-2.88). Patients with cellulitis were also found to have 1.63-fold increased odds of being male (pooled OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12-2.38). </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Our findings suggest that cellulitis is significantly associated with obesity. Maintaining a healthy BMI may be indicated for patients presenting with cellulitis. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> <p/> </sec>
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".