ArticleBMC cancer2025
The application and predictive value of the weight-adjusted-waist index in BC prevalence assessment: a comprehensive statistical and machine learning analysis using NHANES data.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Association analysis of weight-adjusted waist index with hypertension and its subtypes.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObesity is a known risk factor for breast cancer (BC), but conventional metrics such as body mass index (BMI) may insufficiently capture central adiposity. The weight-adjusted waist index (WWI) has emerged as a potentially superior anthropometric marker of central adiposity, as it provides a more accurate reflection of fat distribution around the abdomen compared to traditional measures such as BMI. This study aimed to investigate the association between WWI and BC prevalence using data from a nationally representative population in the United States.
methodsA total of 10,760 women aged over 20 years from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were included. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between WWI and BC prevalence. Multicollinearity was addressed using variance inflation factor diagnostics. Machine learning methods, including random forest and LASSO regression, were employed for variable selection and model comparison. The performance of the models was evaluated using ROC curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis.
resultsIn unadjusted models, WWI was significantly associated with BC (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.86). However, in the fully adjusted model, the association with BC was no longer statistically significant (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.75-1.26). Machine learning models ranked WWI as one of the top predictors, with the random forest model retaining WWI as an important variable, while LASSO excluded it. Models based on variables selected by both LASSO and random forest, which included WWI, were built and assessed using ROC curve analysis. The random forest and LASSO models achieved AUCs of 0.795 and 0.79, respectively, demonstrating improved predictive performance. These findings suggest that while WWI may not serve as an independent predictor of BC, it may offer additional value when combined with other key covariates.
conclusionAlthough the WWI was related to BC prevalence before multivariable adjustment, it was not significantly linked to BC after adjustment. Given the cross-sectional design and the relatively small sample of BC cases (n = 326), the findings should be viewed with caution. Future research with larger prospective cohorts is needed to confirm these results and explore WWI's role in BC risk stratification. Studies should also investigate whether WWI can serve as a reliable independent predictor of BC in future research, taking into account other factors that may influence the association.
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.