MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405463777 · doi:10.1097/as9.0000000000000531

The Obesity Paradox Revisited: Is Obesity Still a Protective Factor for Patients With High Comorbidity Burden or High-Complexity Procedures?

2024· article· en· W4405463777 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityMedicineBody mass indexObesityOdds ratioObesity paradoxConfidence intervalOddsContext (archaeology)Internal medicineCohortOverweightLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the relationship between obesity and postoperative mortality in the context of high procedural complexity and comorbidity burden. Background: The "obesity paradox" suggests better postoperative outcomes in patients with higher body mass index (BMI), despite obesity's associated health risks. Research remains scarce on the influence of procedural complexity and comorbidities on the obesity-postoperative mortality relationship. Methods: We performed an observational study of adult patients undergoing major surgery using the 2016 to 2019 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The outcome was 30-day mortality. We first estimated the risk-adjusted effects of BMI on mortality across the full cohort via multivariable regression and restricted cubic spline models. Then, we investigated the subgroups stratified by procedural complexity and comorbidity burden using a modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) and mortality probability. Results: Among 3,085,582 patients, 47% had obesity. There was a reverse J-shaped relationship between BMI and mortality in the full cohort, consistent with the obesity paradox. However, no difference in odds of mortality was observed in patients with obesity who underwent high-complexity procedures compared with normal BMI counterparts (BMI 30-34.9: odds ratio, 0.93 [95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.01]; BMI 35-39.9: 0.92 [0.83-1.03]; BMI ≥ 40: 0.94 [0.83-1.07]), and in patients with obesity with high comorbidity burden (mCCI ≥ 8 [BMI 30-34.9: 0.95 (0.77-1.16); BMI 35-39.9: 0.78, (0.60-1.02); BMI ≥ 40: 0.84 (0.63-1.12)] and top 3% mortality probability [BMI 30-34.9: 0.96 (0.90-1.02); BMI ≥ 40: 0.94 (0.86-1.01)]). Conclusion: Our findings suggest the existence of an obesity paradox in most adult surgical patients, yet the trend dissipates with high procedural complexity and comorbidity burden.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.218 · 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