MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056074253

Defining Age-Appropriate BMI Cut-Points for Older Adults

2019· dissertation· en· W7056074253 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBody mass indexOverweightLogistic regressionObservational studyAssociation (psychology)Test (biology)CartMEDLINE
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In older age, body composition changes as fat mass increases and redistributes. Due to this, the current body mass index (BMI) classification proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) may not accurately classify older adults (65+) by health risk. The objectives of thesis were to: 1) conduct a scoping review of the literature to investigate the association between BMI and mortality in older adults, 2) define age-specific BMI cut-offs for older adults with regards to health outcomes using data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), and 3) test the performance of the age-specific BMI thresholds in comparison to WHO thresholds. METHODS: The Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for English language observational studies examining the association between BMI and all-cause mortality in older adults (objective 1). CART decision tree analysis was then used to define age-appropriate BMI cut-points in relation to health outcomes (i.e. cardiovascular (CV) conditions and frailty) (objective 2). Logistic regression models were utilized to determine the association between BMI and health outcomes, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity/specificity were used to test the performance of new BMI cut-offs (objective 3). RESULTS: The scoping review found that older adults classified as overweight had reduced mortality compared to normal BMI, thereby necessitating a need for revised cut-offs. In our analyses, age-specific cardiovascular- and frailty-BMI groups were created. Compared to the BMIFrailty- Risk groups, the BMI-CV-Risk groups demonstrated the most improvement in classification from the WHO groups. When evaluating the association between cut-points and outcomes, the model performance and specificity both improved for the new age-specific cut-points compared to the original WHO thresholds, suggesting improved classification with use of these revised groups. The results propose increased overweight thresholds (25.9-27.1) and lowered obese thresholds (28.7-30.9) for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This novel analysis is the first attempt at revising the WHO-BMI thresholds for older Canadian adults. The age-specific BMI-CV-Risk groups offered improvements in classification of older adults from the WHO-BMI groups, and these findings suggest that a higher overweight but lowered obese thresholds may be best suited to older adults. Further work must be done to validate these thresholds in other populations and ethnicities, as well as in the context of other health outcomes.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207