Cardiometabolic Index, BMI, Waist Circumference, and Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity Risk in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The cardiometabolic index (CMI) is a simple anthropometric–metabolic indicator that has recently gained attention as a marker of cardiometabolic risk. This study compared the associations and predictive utility of CMI, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference (WC) for cardiometabolic multimorbidity (CMM). Methods: Data were drawn from 3348 adults (mean age 63.5 years; 45.1% male) in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing who were free of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and stroke at wave 4 (2008–2009). CMI was calculated using the triglyceride-to-HDL-cholesterol ratio and the waist-to-height ratio. Incident CMM at wave 10 (2021–2023) was defined as the presence of ≥2 of these conditions: hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or stroke. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and measures of discrimination were estimated. Results: During 12–15 years of follow-up, 197 CMM cases were recorded. CMI, BMI, and WC were each linearly related to CMM. Higher CMI was associated with increased CMM risk (per 1-SD increase: OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08–1.44; highest vs. lowest tertile: OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.09–3.25), with similar effect sizes for BMI. WC showed stronger associations (per 1-SD increase: OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25–1.71; highest vs. lowest tertile: OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.35–3.44). Adding CMI to a base model resulted in a small, non-significant improvement in discrimination (ΔC-index = 0.0032; p = 0.55) but significantly improved model fit (−2 log-likelihood p = 0.004), with comparable effects for BMI and greater improvements for WC. Conclusions: In this older UK cohort, higher CMI levels were associated with increased long-term risk of CMM but did not outperform traditional adiposity measures such as BMI and WC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".