MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404872040 · doi:10.2196/57799

Utility of Anthropometric Indexes for Detecting Metabolic Syndrome in Resource-Limited Regions of Northwestern China: Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4404872040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danyu Yang, Ling Ma, Hongjuan Shi, Yining Liu, Chao Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryMedicineWaistBody mass indexBody Shape IndexCross-sectional studyDemographyLogistic regressionMetabolic syndromeWaist-to-height ratioObesityEnvironmental healthInternal medicineClassification of obesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anthropometric indexes offer a practical approach to identifying metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components. However, there is a scarcity of research on anthropometric indexes tailored to predict MetS in populations from resource-limited regions. Objective: This study aimed to examine the association between 8 easy-to-collect anthropometric indexes and MetS, and determine the most appropriate indexes to identify the presence of MetS for adults in resource-limited areas. Methods: A total of 10,520 participants aged 18-85 years from Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China, were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants were recruited through a stratified sampling approach from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. MetS was defined using the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria. Eight anthropometric indexes were examined, including BMI, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), weight-adjusted waist index (WWI), conicity index, a body shape index (ABSI), lipid accumulation products (LAP), visceral obesity index (VAI), and the triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index. Logistic regression analysis and restricted cubic splines (RCSs) were applied to identify the association between the anthropometric indexes. The receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed to identify and compare the discriminative power of anthropometric indexes in identifying MetS. The Youden index was used to determine a range of optimal diagnostic thresholds. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the association between the anthropometric indexes. Results: A total of 3324 (31.60%) participants were diagnosed with MetS. After adjusting for age, ethnicity, current residence, education level, habitual alcohol consumption, and tobacco use, all the 8 indexes were positively correlated with the risks of MetS (P<.05). LAP presented the highest adjusted odds ratios (adjOR 35.69, 95% CI 34.59-36.80), followed by WHtR (adjOR 29.27, 95% CI 28.00-30.55), conicity index (adjOR 11.58, 95% CI 10.95-12.22), TyG index (adjOR 5.53, 95% CI 5.07-6.04), BMI (adjOR 3.88, 95% CI 3.71-4.05), WWI (adjOR 3.23, 95% CI 3.02-3.46), VAI (adjOR 2.11, 95% CI 2.02-2.20), and ABSI (adjOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.80). Significantly nonlinear associations between the 8 indexes and the risk of MetS (all Pnonlinear<.001) were observed in the RCSs. WHtR was the strongest predictor of MetS for males (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92; optimal cutoff 0.53). LAP were the strongest predictor of MetS for females (AUC 0.89, 95% CI 0.89-0.90; optimal cutoff 28.67). Statistical differences were present between WHtR and all other 7 anthropometric indexes among males and overall (all P<.05). In females, the AUC values between LAP and BMI, WWI, ABSI, conicity index, VAI, and TyG index were significantly different (P<.001). No statistical difference was observed between LAP and WHtR among females. Conclusions: According to 8 anthropometric and lipid-related indices, it is suggested that WHtR and LAP are the most appropriate indexes for identifying the presence of MetS in resource-limited areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207