ArticleInternational journal of endocrinology2026
Misclassification Bias in the Waist-To-Hip Ratio: Implications for Obesity-Related Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes.
Article in International journal of endocrinology, 2026. 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.
- Misclassification Bias in the Waist-To-Hip Ratio: Implications for Obesity-Related Risk of Incident Type 2 Diabetes.International journal of endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) directly reflects body fat distribution compared to other obesity indicators such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). However, WHR may misclassify Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk by failing to account for the individual contribution of WC and hip circumference (HC). The study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory ability of WHR for T2DM and to identify its misclassification bias. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study included 15,211 Chinese participants aged 50+ years without T2DM at baseline (2003-08), with follow-up conducted from 2008 to 2015. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to examine associations between obesity indicators and T2DM. Discriminatory ability was evaluated using the C-statistic, net reclassification index (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Results: During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 2238 participants (14.71%) developed T2DM. Participants with large WC and large HC had a higher T2DM risk compared to those with small WC and small HC in the low or high WHR category (adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals [CIs]): 2.33 [1.98, 2.74], 1.73 [1.47, 2.03]). WHR showed lower discrimination (C-statistic 0.632, 95% CI 0.619, 0.645) than WC (0.645, 95% CI 0.632, 0.658) and WHtR (0.657, 95% CI 0.644, 0.670). Combining WHR with BMI significantly improved discrimination compared to WHR alone (△C-statistic, NRI, IDI, and 95% CIs were 0.028 [0.020, 0.035], 0.015 [0.012, 0.020], and 0.141 [0.115, 0.165]), and it showed better discriminatory ability compared to the combination of BMI and WC (△C-statistic 0.007, 95% CI 0.004, 0.011). Conclusions: WHR alone underestimates T2DM risk in individuals with large WC and large HC. Combining WHR with BMI addresses misclassification bias.
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.