MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100457541

129International Journal of Circumpolar Health 66:2 2007 Inuit anthropometry and insulin resistance ORIGINAL ARTICLE INUIT ANTHROPOMETRy AND INSULIN RESISTANCE

2007· article· en· W7100457541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunity-based Tourism Development and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryInsulin resistanceWaistBody mass indexObesityCircumpolar starInsulin sensitivityHomeostatic model assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. Due to the increasing prevalence of obesity among Inuit, a study was conducted in an Inuit community to evaluate the anthropometric correlates of indices of insulin resistance using the homeostasis model assessment index (IRHOMA) and the insulin sensitivity index (ISI0,120). Study Design. Data were collected as part of a health screening in a Baffin community in Nunavut, Canada, among adults 18 years of age and above. Methods. A total of 52 Inuit participated in the health screening of which 46 completed both the fasting and the 2-hour blood tests. Insulin sensitivity indices could be calculated on 45 participants. Results. Results for women indicated that in age-adjusted linear regression analyses, body mass index, waist circumference (WC) and percent body fat (%BF) predicted IRHOMA, and ISI0,120 (p<0.05). For men, %BF predicted IRHOMA, and WC and %BF predicted ISI0,120 (p≤0.05). Conclusions. The present study suggests that increasing rates of obesity among Inuit will have health consequences and that anthropometry is a useful tool to indirectly assess insulin resistance/

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunity-based Tourism Development and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207