Genetic predisposition to adiposity, and type 2 diabetes: the role of lifestyle and phenotypic adiposity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Genetic predisposition to adiposity is associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D), even in the absence of phenotypic adiposity (obesity and central obesity). We aimed to quantify the overall contribution of obesity and modifiable lifestyle factors to the association between genetic predisposition to adiposity and the development of T2D. METHODS: This prospective cohort study involved 220 703 White British participants from the UK Biobank. It examined the associations between genetic predisposition to adiposity [body mass index polygenic risk (BMI-PRS) and waist-hip ratio polygenic risk (WHR-PRS)] and incident T2D, as well as interactions and mediation via lifestyle factors (diet quality, physical activity levels, total energy intake, sleep duration, and smoking and alcohol intake) and phenotypic adiposity. RESULTS: People with high phenotypic adiposity and high adiposity PRS values (>1 SD above the mean) had the highest risk of incident T2D (versus non-obese/central obese and non-high PRS). This was the case for BMI-PRS [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.72] and WHR-PRS (HR = 4.17). Lifestyle factors explained 30.5% of the BMI-PRS/T2D association (2.0% mediation; 28.5% effect modification), and lifestyle and obesity together explained 92.1% (78.8% mediation; 13.3% effect modification). Lifestyle factors explained 20.4% of the WHR-PRS/T2D association (3.4% mediation; 17.0% effect modification), and lifestyle and central obesity together explained 72.8% (41.1% mediation; 31.7% effect modification). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst phenotypic adiposity explains a large proportion of the association between BMI-PRS/WHR-PRS and T2D, modifiable lifestyle factors also make contributions. Promoting healthy lifestyles among people prone to adiposity is important in reducing the global burden of T2D.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".