ArticleObesity pillars2025
Leveraging diagnosis and biometric data from the All of Us Research Program to uncover disparities in obesity diagnosis.
Article in Obesity pillars, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A multimodal, risk-stratified framework for AI-driven early risk prediction and personalised prevention in obesity.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite extensive efforts to standardize definitions of obesity, clinical practices of diagnosing obesity vary widely. This study examined (1) discrepancies between biometric body mass index (BMI) measures of obesity and documented diagnoses of obesity in patient electronic health records (EHRs) and (2) how these discrepancies vary by patient gender and race and ethnicity from an intersectional lens. Methods: Observational study of 383,380 participants in the National Institutes of Health Results: Over half (60 %) of participants with a BMI indicating obesity had no clinical diagnosis of obesity in their EHRs. Adjusting for BMI, comorbidities, and other covariates, women's adjusted odds of diagnosis were far higher than men's (95 % confidence interval 1.66-1.75). However, the gender gap between women's and men's likelihood of diagnosis varied widely across racial groups. Overall, Non-Hispanic (NH) Black women and Hispanic women were the most likely to be diagnosed and NH-Asian men were the least likely to be diagnosed. Conclusion: Men, and particularly NH-Asian men, may be at heightened risk of underdiagnosis of obesity. Women, and especially Hispanic and NH-Black women, may be at heightened risk of unanticipated harms of obesity diagnosis, including stigma and competing demand with other health concerns. Leveraging diagnosis and biometric data from this unique public domain dataset from the All of Us project, this study revealed pervasive disparities in diagnostic attribution by gender, race, and ethnicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.