MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408472569 · doi:10.14740/jem1054

Anthropometric Markers as Cardiovascular Predictors: A Comparison Between Conventional Cut-Off Points and Population Percentiles

2025· article· en· W4408472569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Víctor Juan Vera-Ponce, Fiorella E. Zuzunaga-Montoya, Luisa Erika Milagros Vásquez-Romero, Joan A. Loayza-Castro, Lupita Ana Maria Valladolid-Sandoval, Jhosmer Ballena-Caicedo, Witre Omar Padilla, Carmen Inés Gutierrez De Carrillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercentileAnthropometryPopulationInternal medicineStatisticsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of mortality worldwide. An ongoing debate exists regarding the most appropriate methods for assessing adiposity-associated cardiovascular risk in working populations. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between different anthropometric markers and the development of cardiovascular events in Peruvian workers. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 10,300 workers (2014 - 2021). Body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and the WC-BMI index were evaluated as predictors of CVD (myocardial infarction and/or stroke). Population percentiles (75th and 95th) and conventional cut-off points were used. Additionally, conventional cut-off points were employed, such as 0.5 for WHtR, and according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III) (≥ 102 cm in men and ≥ 88 cm in women) or International Diabetes Federation (IDF) (≥ 80 cm in men and ≥ 90 cm in women) for abdominal obesity. Results: Obesity, as measured by BMI, showed a significant association with myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 4.07; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 - 15.4). Very high WC and WHtR (95th percentile) presented a greater risk of total cardiovascular events (aHR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.12 - 5.12 and aHR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.17-5.64, respectively), being particularly predictive for stroke (aHR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.13 - 18.1 and aHR: 4.05; 95% CI: 1.01 - 16.3, respectively). No significant associations were found using conventional cut-off points for WHtR and abdominal obesity. Conclusions: Central adiposity markers, especially WC and WHtR, were evaluated through population percentiles and were better predictors of cardiovascular events than BMI or conventional cut-off points in the Peruvian working population. These findings support reorienting obesity definitions toward cardiovascular risk assessment using population-specific percentiles rather than relying exclusively on universal adiposity thresholds.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endocrinology and MetabolismSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207