Genetic ancestry influences body shape and obesity risk in Latin American populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is not simply a matter of excess weight. It also involves changes in structure and proportion in body morphology that can vary between populations and within individuals as they develop and age. Anthropometric measurements and their derived indices are widely used to study obesity. However, they present limitations to capture variations of fat distribution in the human body within a given population, and among different populations. Particularly, currently a problem in epidemiology is that cut-off points and health risk classifications based on anthropometric measures such as BMI, WHR or WHtR may not be equally valid for all population groups, especially when there are differences in genetic ancestry. Using data from [Formula: see text] Latin American adults, we evaluated the accuracy of traditional indices across gradients of Native American, European, and African ancestry, and a comparison with three-dimensional (3D) body shape analysis, which offers a promising venue for capturing these complexities. We found that traditional indices systematically misclassified obesity-related risk in certain ancestry groups, with WHR and WHtR showing ancestry-specific biases. In contrast, 3D body shape promises to capture nuanced variations in fat distribution and reduced ancestry-related misclassification. By leveraging techniques based on advanced geometric morphometry and image and data processing, we can better characterize the interaction between genetic ancestry and body composition, ultimately improving the accuracy of obesity diagnosis and stratification in Latin American populations. These results highlight the need for ancestry-aware obesity diagnostics and demonstrate that integrating advanced 3D morphometric techniques can improve risk assessment and guide precision public health strategies in Latin America and beyond. We demonstrate that incorporating 3D body shape data alongside genetic ancestry data improves the accuracy of obesity risk stratification in Latin American populations. Our proposed methods could be adapted, expanded and applied to other populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".