MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414842191 · doi:10.17352/2455-5479.000232

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Association Between Hypertriglyceridemic Waist Phenotype and Hypertension

2025· article· en· W4414842191 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nor Izzati Saedon, Rosdina Zamrud Ahmad Akbar, Wang Fei

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Community Medicine and Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaistMeta-analysisObservational studyOdds ratioSubgroup analysisMEDLINECochrane LibraryAssociation (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> Background: The hypertriglyceridemic waist (HTGW) phenotype, defined by elevated waist circumference and triglycerides, is a surrogate marker of visceral adiposity and cardiometabolic dysfunction. While several studies have investigated its association with hypertension, findings have been inconsistent across populations and study designs. Objectives: To systematically evaluate the association between HTGW and hypertension, and to examine whether sex and regional differences influence this relationship. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest, CNKI, and Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2024. Both English and non-English studies were eligible. Grey literature was screened but no additional studies were included. Observational studies reporting odds ratios (ORs) for hypertension by HTGW status in adults were selected. Pooled estimates were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models depending on heterogeneity (I² &gt;50%). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Six studies (n = 32,284; men = 14,102, women = 18,182) were included. The pooled analysis showed that HTGW was significantly associated with hypertension (OR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.54–2.39; P &lt; 0.001; I² = 35%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated stronger associations in women (OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.59–2.64) than men (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.42–2.23), and in Asian populations (OR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.58–2.63) compared to European cohorts (OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.29–2.11). Results were consistent across study design and quality. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, and Egger’s test (P = 0.21) suggested no publication bias, though statistical power was limited. Conclusion: HTGW is significantly associated with nearly twofold higher odds of hypertension, with stronger effects among women and Asian populations. As a simple and inexpensive measure, HTGW may be integrated into hypertension risk prediction models and community screening programs, particularly in resource-limited settings.

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 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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Community Medicine and Public HealthSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207