↓ Skip to main content

Addition of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Within an Obesity Risk Classification Model Identifies Men at Increased Risk of All-Cause Mortality

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Addition of Cardiorespiratory Fitness Within an Obesity Risk Classification Model Identifies Men at Increased Risk of All-Cause Mortality
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.11.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Alexander Ricketts, Xuemei Sui, Carl J. Lavie, Steven N. Blair, Robert Ross

Abstract

Guidelines for identification of obesity-related risk stratify disease risk using specific combinations of body mass index and waist circumference. Whether the addition of cardiorespiratory fitness, an independent predictor of disease risk, provides better risk prediction of all-cause mortality within current body mass index and waist circumference categories is unknown. To determine whether the addition of cardiorespiratory fitness improves prediction of all-cause mortality risk classified by the combination of body mass index and waist circumference. We performed a prospective observational study using data from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (ACLS). A total of 31,267 men (mean age 43.9 [SD, 9.4] years) who completed a baseline medical examination during 1974-2002. The main outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Participants were grouped using body mass index- and waist circumference-specific threshold combinations: Normal body mass index: 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2), waist circumference threshold of 90 cm; overweight body mass index: 25.0-29.9 kg/m(2), waist circumference threshold of 100 cm, and obese body mass index: 30.0-34.9 kg/m(2), waist circumference threshold of 110 cm. Participants were classified using cardiorespiratory fitness as unfit or fit, where unfit was the lowest fifth of the age-specified distribution of maximal exercise test time on treadmill among the entire ACLS population. 1,399 deaths occurred over a follow-up of 14.1 ± 7.4 years, for a total of 439, 991 person-years of observation. Males who were unfit and normal body mass index with waist circumference <90 cm and ≥90 cm had 95% (1.95, 1.34-2.83) [Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval] and 163% (2.63, 1.58-4.40) higher mortality risk than males who were fit, respectively (p<.05). Males who were unfit and overweight had 41% (1.41, 1.04-1.90) higher mortality risk with a waist circumference <100 cm (p<.05), but were at no greater risk (1.30, 0.92-1.84) if their waist circumference was ≥100 cm (p=.14). Males who were unfit and obese were not at increased mortality risk (1.37, 0.90-2.09) with a waist circumference <110 cm (p=.14), but were at 111% (2.11, 1.31-3.42) increased risk with a waist circumference ≥110 cm (p<.05). For most of the body mass index and waist circumference categories, inclusion of cardiorespiratory fitness allowed for improved identification of males at increased mortality risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 22%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#6,667
of 7,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,078
of 395,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#70
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.