Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is often associated with malabsorption due to pancreatic insufficiency. The maintenance of a normal body mass index (BMI) is associated with better pulmonary function (FEV1) and survival. However, as major advancements in respiratory therapies and nutritional optimization continue to optimize the health of patients with CF, there is an emerging sub-population with excessive and/or rapid weight gain in some patients. The long term complications of obesity in this population have not been well characterized to date. For this work, baseline data from 290 adult patients with CF from the Montréal CF Cohort were collected. Observational follow-up data of 158 of those patients, over an average of 3.5 years, were also collected. At baseline, we characterized patients according to their BMI: underweight (UW < 18.5 kg/m2), normal (NW 18.5-26.9 kg/m2), and overweight/obese (OW≥ 27 kg/m2). Prospective observational analyses were then performed using follow-up data. The follow-up data was categorized based on weight change over the 3.5-year period: weight loss (WL > 10% weight change), stable (WS), and weight gain (WG > 10% weight change). BMI categories and follow-up data were compared to FEV1 and cardiometabolic parameters, such as glucose tolerance, estimated insulin resistance (IR), blood pressure (BP), and lipid profile. At baseline, we found that the majority of patients were NW (81.0%), while 12.1% were UW and 6.9% were OW. Our results showed that OW patients tended to be older, were less likely to have pancreatic insufficiency, a higher systolic BP, higher LDL, and higher IR. In addition, compared to UW patients, OW patients had a better FEV1. For the follow-up weight change analysis, 4.4% patients lost weight (WL group) while 84.8% kept a stable weight (WS group) and 10.8% gained weight (WG group). While WL and WS patients had a decrease in FEV1, WG patients had a 5% increase in FEV1. The WG group also had higher IR and triglycerides compared to the WL and WS groups. No differences were observed for glucose tolerance for neither BMI nor weight change. Together, our results showed that a greater absolute weight and greater weight gain over time are associated with a better lung function but unfavorable cardiometabolic trends
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".