MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117682748 · doi:10.3390/geriatrics11010004

Cardiometabolic Index, BMI, Waist Circumference, and Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity Risk in Older Adults

2025· article· en· W7117682748 on OpenAlex
Setor K. Kunutsor, Jari A. Laukkanen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaistBody mass indexOdds ratioConfidence intervalMultimorbidityStroke (engine)CircumferenceOdds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · 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