Abstract
Importance Artificial intelligence analytics may be applied to global burden of disease (GBD) data on body mass index (BMI) and associated risk factors.
Objective Rigorously quantify the interactions of dietary and other risk factors that result in adult BMI
Design We formatted global burden of disease data relevant to body mass index and associated risk factors. We empirically explored the univariate and multiple regression correlations of BMI risk factors with worldwide BMI to derive a BMI multiple regression formula (BMI formula).
Setting Worldwide
Participants Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation staff and volunteer collaborators analyzed over 12,000 GBD risk factor surveys of people from 195 countries and synthesized the data into representative cohort BMI and risk factor values.
Main outcome measures the performances of the BMI formula when tested with all nine Bradford Hill causality criteria each scored on a 0-5 scale: 0=negative to 5=very strong support
Results In the BMI formula derived, all foods were expressed in kilocalories/day (kcal/day). We adjusted BMI formula risk factor coefficients to equate with their population attributable fractions (PAFs in percent’s) relating to worldwide mean BMI. BMI increasing foods had “+” signs and BMI decreasing foods had “-“ signs. Total PAF of BMI formula=80.96%. BMI formula=(0.37%*processed meat + 4.23%*red meat + 0.02%*fish + 2.24%*milk + 5.67%*poultry + 1.77%*eggs + 0.34%*alcohol + 0.99%*sugary beverages + 0.04%*corn + 0.72%*potatoes + 8.48%*saturated fatty acids + 3.89%*polyunsaturated fatty acids + 0.27%*trans fatty acids - 2.99%*fruit - 4.07%*vegetables - 0.37%*nuts and seeds - 0.45%*whole grains - 1.49%*legumes - 8.62%*rice - 0.10%*sweet potatoes - 7.45% physical activity (METs/week) - 20.38%*child underweight + 6.02%*sex (male=1, female=2))*0.05012 + 21.77. (BMI formula versus BMI: r=0.907 (95% CI: 0.903 to 0.911) p<0.0001, Bradford Hill causality criteria test scores (0-5): (1) strength=5, (2) experimentation=5, (3) consistency=5, (4) dose-response=5, (5) temporality=5, (6) analogy=4, (7), plausibility=5, (8) specificity=5, and (9) coherence=5. Total score=44/45.
Conclusions and relevance Nine Bradford Hill causality criteria strongly supported a causal relationship between the BMI formula derived and mean BMIs of worldwide cohorts. The artificial intelligence methodology introduced could inform individual, clinical, and public health strategies regarding overweight/obesity prevention/treatment and other health outcomes.
Question Can worldwide global burden of disease (GBD) data analysis derive a body mass index (BMI) multiple regression formula testable by Bradford Hill causality criteria?
Findings A multiple regression derived formula including population attributable fractions (PAFs) of 20 dietary risk factors, physical activity, childhood severe underweight, and sex satisfied all nine Bradford Hill causality criteria. The BMI formula also plausibly predicted the long-term BMI outcomes related to various dietary and physical activity scenarios.
Meaning GBD data analysis of BMI and associated risk factors may infer causality with overweight/obesity and possibly for health outcomes in nutritional epidemiology generally.
Introduction
Comparable risk assessment (CRA) methodology by the World Health Organization1 and the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME)2 based on systematic literature reviews provides our current analytic framework for relating risk factors to health outcomes in population health. However, medical journal reports include a relatively small fraction of the world’s nearly 8 billion people. In an editorial in the BMJ titled, “Implausible results in human nutrition research”, influential Stanford University meta researcher, Dr. John Ioannidis detailed why, in his words, “definitive solutions won’t come from another million observational papers or small randomized trials.”3 Dr. Ioannidis called for radical reform of nutritional epidemiology methodologies used to influence food/agricultural policies and to produce dietary guidelines for clinicians and the public.4
According to IBM Cloud Education, “At its simplest form, artificial intelligence (AI) is a field, which combines computer science and robust datasets, to enable problem-solving.”5 This paper’s analysis dataset formatted from 1.4 gigabytes of global burden of disease (GBD) worldwide data and BMI multiple regression derived risk factor formula (BMI formula) satisfy this definition of AI. The intent is to answer Dr. Ioannidis’ call for innovation in epidemiology, particularly nutritional epidemiology.
Satisfying Bradford Hill causality criteria are considered validating in epidemiological research.6 We used Bradford Hill causality criteria to test the BMI formula. We hypothesized that AI analytics with GBD big data would contribute to quantifying the determinants of BMI and thereby to better understanding the dietary and other risk factors driving the obesity epidemic.
Methods
As volunteer collaborators with the IHME we received raw GBD ecological data (≈1.4 Gigabytes) on mean BMIs of male and female cohorts 15-49 years old and 50-69 years old from each year 1990-2017 from 195 countries and 365 subnational locations (n=1120 cohorts). We also utilized GBD data on exposures to 32 risk factors and covariates potentially related to BMI.
Food risk factors came from surveys of individuals as g/day. IHME dietary covariate data originally came from Food and Agriculture Organization data on animal and plant food commodities available percapita in countries worldwide—as opposed to consumption data from participant interviews.7 Supplementary Table 1 lists the relevant GBD risk factors, covariates, and other available variables with definitions of those risk factor exposures.8
GBD worldwide citations of over 12,000 surveys constituting ecological data inputs for this analysis are available from IHME.7 The main characteristics of IHME GBD data sources for BMI, the protocol for the GBD study, and all risk factor values have been published by IHME GBD data researchers and discussed elsewhere.9–12 These included detailed descriptions of categories of input data, potentially important biases, and methodologies of analysis. We did not clean or pre-process any of the GBD data. GBD cohort risk factor and BMI data from the IHME had no missing records. The updated 2019 raw data with variables we used for this analysis may be obtained by volunteer researchers collaborating with IHME.13
To maximally utilize the available data, we averaged the values for ages 15-49 years old together with 50-69 years old for BMI and for each risk factor exposure for each male and female cohort for each year. Finally, for each male and female cohort, data from all 28 years (1990-2017) on mean BMI and on each of the risk factor exposures were averaged using the computer software program R.
To weigh the country and subnational data according to population, internet searches (mostly Wikipedia) yielded the most recent population estimates for countries and subnational states, provinces, and regions. World population data from the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development could not be used because they did not include all 195 countries or any subnational data.
Using the above-described formatted dataset of risk factors, covariates, and BMIs, a software program in R generated a population-weighted analysis dataset. Each male or female cohort in the population-weighted analysis dataset represented approximately 1 million people (range: < 100,000 to 1.5 million). The analysis dataset had n=7846 cohorts (rows of data), half male and half female, representative of over seven billion people.
Supplementary Table 2 details how we converted omega-3 fatty acid g/day to fish g/day using data on the omega-3 fatty acid content of frequently eaten fish from the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (USA).14 As shown in Supplementary Table 3, we converted all of the animal and plant food data, including alcohol and sugary beverage consumption, from g/day to kcal/day. For the g to kcal conversions, we used the Nutritionix track app,15 which tracks types and quantities of foods consumed. Saturated fatty acids (SFA) risk factor (0-1 portion of the entire diet) was not available with GBD data from 2017, so GBD SFA risk factor data from 2016 was used. Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and trans fatty acid (TFA) GBD risk factor data from 2017 (0-1 portion of the entire diet) were also utilized. These fatty acid data were converted to kcal/day by multiplying the fatty acid 0-1 portion of the entire diet by the kcal/day available for each cohort.
Statistical methods
To determine the strengths of the risk factor correlations with mean BMIs of population weighted worldwide cohorts (7846 cohorts) or subgroups of cohorts (e.g., continents, socio-demographic quartiles, etc.), we utilized Pearson correlation coefficients: r, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and p values.
In seeking to derive the optimal BMI multiple regression formula from worldwide data, we determined our methodology as we proceeded by experimenting with strategies to optimize the functioning of candidate BMI formulas derived by
including as many as possible of the available dietary variables,
combining dietary variables if appropriate, and
including physical activity and other plausibly informative variables.
Appendix 1 explains the use of Bradford Hill causality criteria to assess whether the risk factors in the BMI formula derived accurately modeled the worldwide mean BMI. Briefly, we tested the BMI formula output with the Bradford Hill causality criteria (1) strength, (2) experimentation, (3) consistency, (4) dose response, (5) temporality, (6 analogy, (7) plausibility, (8) specificity, and (9) coherence. For each criterion, we used a 0-5 scale to assess the magnitude of support of the BMI formula output being causally related to the BMIs worldwide (0=no support of causality to 5=very strong support of causality, total possible points=45.
In determining the variables to include and exclude in worldwide BMI formula, we set the statistical threshold for a variable to enter and to remain in the formula at p<0.25. We used SAS and SAS Studio statistical software 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) for the data analysis.
Results
Table 1 shows the basic statistics and univariate correlations of mean cohort BMI worldwide with mean dietary and other risk factor values. Whole grains, legumes, rice, and sweet potatoes negatively correlated with BMI. We designated them, “BMI decreasing foods.” The six animal foods (processed meat, red meat, fish, milk, poultry, and eggs), alcohol, sugary beverages, corn availability, potato availability, added SFA, added PUFA, and added TFA all positively correlated with BMI. We designated them, “BMI increasing foods.”
In Supplementary Table 4, which shows BMI risk factor to risk factor correlations, corn availability (kcal/day percapita, a covariate) correlated moderately strongly with sugary beverages (r=0.419, 95% CI 0.400 to 0.437, p<0.0001), suggesting that high fructose corn syrup may have accounted for the unexpected positive correlation of corn with BMI.
According to the International Potato Center, potato availability (a covariate), which positively correlated with BMI, included ≥50% highly processed potato products worldwide,16 likely accounting for the ≥ positive correlation of potatoes with BMI.
The strong positive correlations of fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds with BMI (Table 1) were unexpected. These findings suggested likely multicollinearity of fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds with BMI increasing foods (when an independent variable is highly correlated with one or more known or unknown other independent variables). Supplementary Table 4 shows the univariate correlations of each of the BMI formula risk factors with each other risk factor. Fruits, vegetables and nuts and seeds strongly positively correlated with 10 of the 13 dietary variables that positively correlated with BMI (six animal-based foods, alcohol, SFA, PUFA, and TFA). Fruits, vegetables and nuts and seeds negatively correlated with the four other plant-based foods (whole grains, legumes, rice, and sweet potatoes), except fruits was not significantly correlated with whole grains. Together, these findings strongly suggested that multicollinearities accounted for the positive correlations of fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds with BMI.
Supplementary Table 5 shows the Excel spreadsheet calculations, which were coordinated with SAS multiple regressions involved in the derivation of the worldwide BMI formula. Appendix 2 detailed the steps in the BMI (dependent variable) versus BMI risk factors (independent variables) multiple regression formula derivation. As seen in Supplementary Table 5, described in Appendix 2, and contrasted with the current method of deriving PAFs,1, 2, 17 the BMI formula versus BMI variance (R2=0.8096) * 100 determined the total PAF (80.96%) accounted for by the BMI formula. The 23 risk factor coefficients could then be equated to the PAFs of those risk factors. The resulting BMI formula is shown below (all foods in kcal/day):
BMI formula output analyzed by Bradford Hill causality criteria
As mentioned in the methods and detailed in Appendix 1, the nine Bradford Hill causality criteria tested the functionality of the BMI formula:
Strength score=5 for r>0.500, p<0.0001—The BMI formula’s output regressed with mean BMI of worldwide cohorts gave r= 0.907 (95% CI: 0.903 to 0.911) p<0.0001), R2=0.8096, total percent weight=80.96%.
Experiment score=5 for all 20 bootstrap trial BMI formulas with r>0.500, p<0.0001)— Table 2 shows bootstrapping the BMI formula related to mean worldwide BMI with 20 trials (repeated sampling from the worldwide analysis dataset with replacements18). Each trial had 100 randomly selected cohorts to generate a unique BMI formula. As Table 2 shows, the mean values for BMI and the risk factor PAFs were all quite close to the mean values for BMI and BMI risk factors in the worldwide BMI formula (last column).
Consistency score=5 for the mean of absolute differences of BMI formula outputs and mean BMI < 0.300 kg/M2—In Table 3, we used 37 subsets of worldwide BMI and risk factor data to test the consistency of BMI formula outputs, utilizing the 20 bootstrap trials (#2 Experiment) to generate 80% confidence intervals for each subset. Table 3 shows the average absolute difference between the 37 subgroups mean BMIs and BMI formula outputs was 0.252 kg/M2.
Dose-response (Biological gradient) score=5 for the mean of absolute differences of BMI formula outputs and mean BMI for the dose-response quartiles< 0.300 kg/M2—Table 3 also shows that the mean of the BMI absolute differences between the BMI formula estimates and mean BMIs in the four dose-response quartiles was 0.220 kg/M2.
View this table:Table 2. Bootstrap validation experiment: 20 BMI formulas each with 100 random cohortsView this table:Table 3. Consistency measured with 37 subgroups of worldwide GBD dataTemporality score=5 for the BMI trend formula versus BMI trend r>0.500, p<0.0001—As is shown in Supplementary Table 6 and detailed in Appendix 1, a multiple regression analysis with the worldwide BMI trend 1990-2007 (dependent variable) versus 22 of the 23 risk factor trends (independent variables excluding sex) generated a BMI trend formula (All foods are in Kcal/day.):
As with the BMI formula, the coefficients of the BMI risk factor trends formula were equated to their PAFs. BMI trend formula r=0.592, 95% CI: 0.577 to 0.606, p<0.0001, and total PAF=35.02%.
Analogy score=4—The three metabolic risk factors correlated with BMI to test analogy were systolic blood pressure (SBP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG).
• BMI correlated with SBP: r=0.102, 95% CI: 0.080 to 0.124, p<0.0001.
• BMI correlated with FPG: r=0.558, 95% CI: 0.542 to 0.573, p<0.0001.
• BMI correlated with LDL-C: r=0.756, 95% CI: 0.746 to 0.765, p<0.0001.
Since BMI versus SBP r<0.500, Bradford Hill causality score=4.
Plausibility: Score=5—Based on systematic medical literature reviews, physical activity inversely correlated with BMI,19 and BMI directly correlated with intakes of sugary beverages,20 alcohol,21 and animal foods.22 The relationship of adult BMI with early childhood severe underweight has not been reported worldwide. Since people in poor countries with high infant/childhood malnutrition have fewer resources to obtain animal foods, fatty acids, and alcohol and more need for physical exercise than in developed countries, it is highly plausible that childhood severe underweight negatively correlated with lower BMI in adulthood.
Specificity: Score=5 for the BMI formula being unique.—The BMI formula was specific to worldwide BMI and would have been different from risk factor formulas modeling SBP, FPG, LDL-C, or any health outcome.
Coherence: Score=5—As evidenced by the near perfect score 39/40 on the first eight criteria, the BMI formula accurately modeled worldwide mean BMI—total causality criteria score: 44/45.
Table 5 shows BMI formula estimates for various patterns of diet and/or other BMI formula risk factors. For instance, increasing physical activity by adding a run for 1 hour/day at six miles/hour on average along with decreasing BMI increasing foods by isocalorically shifting 25% of BMI increasing foods (Kcal/day) to BMI decreasing foods was projected to reduce the mean cohort BMI from 26.66 kg/M2 to mean BMI=22.26 kg/M2.
Discussion
In this analysis of long-term worldwide BMI and GBD risk factor data, the nine Bradford Hill causality criteria all supported that the BMI formula derived was causally related to mean worldwide BMI of cohorts of 15-69-year-old people. Now we should consider including the quantification of BMI risk factors demonstrated here into US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS)/ US Department of Agriculture (USDA) health policy discussions and clinical nutrition guideline deliberations.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP—formerly Food Stamps) spent an estimated 22.6% of its $73 billion/year budget23 on payments to low-income Americans for “sweetened beverages, prepared desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar.”24 Additionally, the USDA has subsidized crops that go primarily for animal feed or that are processed into sugars while not subsidizing fruits and vegetables.25 While the USDA recognizes the relatively low intake of fruits and vegetables in the USA and sponsors a publicity campaign to increase fruits and vegetables consumption,26 USDA expenditures should promote reduced prices of BMI decreasing foods and increased prices of BMI increasing foods.
A review of the literature on food costs relative to nutrient quality found that the median costs of fruits and vegetables (€0.82/100 kcal) was quite high relative meat/eggs/fish (€0.64/100 kcal), fresh dairy (€0.32/100 kcal), nuts (€0.25/100 kcal), and starches (€0.14/100 kcal).27 This suggests that people who can afford fruits and vegetables are people who also can afford high quantities of the BMI increasing foods, particularly government subsidized animal products. The economics of food, including the high cost of fruits and vegetables may contribute to overweight and obesity in the USA and in other affluent countries.
Following a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet has been demonstrated to cause modest short term weight loss in obese people,28 However, the BMI formula projects that the long-term effect of a low-carb, high fat diet would be a mean cohort BMI of 29.05 kg/M2 (Table 5).
Limitations
The GBD data on animal foods, plant foods, alcohol, and fatty acids were not comprehensive and comprised only 1191.4 Kcal/day on average worldwide. Subnational data were available on only four countries. Because the data formatting and statistical methodology were new, this was necessarily a post hoc analysis and no pre-analysis protocol or Bradford Hill causality criteria scoring system was possible. As detailed in the Foresight Report on obesity,29 obesity is affected by a complex system of interacting factors besides diet, physical activity, and childhood feeding patterns, and sex. So genes,30 gut microbiome,31 ultra-processing of food,32, 33 and other influences on BMI were outside of the purview of this analysis.
Generalizability
Given the strength and consistency of the relationship of the mean cohort BMI with the BMI formula estimates (Tables 1-4), the findings should be generalizable to people all over the world. However, over 70% of the cohorts in analysis dataset had low to moderate BMI levels (BMI < 23 kg/M2) the results could be further refined for relatively high SDI countries by deriving a BMI formula from the four countries that have subnational data (UK, USA, Mexico, and Japan n=730 cohorts) or the cohorts with mean BMI ≥ 23 (n=2256 cohorts).
Conclusions
Nine Bradford Hill causality criteria strongly supported that the BMI formula derived with the 23 risk factors in proportion to their PAFs accurately modeled worldwide cohort mean BMI. While this study dealt only with dietary and other available risk factors for BMI (overweight/obesity), the AI methodology introduced could easily apply to estimating PAFs of multiple dietary and other risk factors that pertain to dozens of non-communicable diseases, for which the IHME have GBD data.
Data Availability
The raw, unformatted data used in this analysis is now out of date. The 2019 GBD data on all the variables in this analysis may be obtained from the IHME by volunteer collaborating researchers. The formatted database, SAS codes and Excel spreadsheets on which this analysis is based are posted on the Mendeley data repository.
https://data.mendeley.com/v1/datasets/publish-confirmation/g6b39zxck4/6
Article Information
Corresponding Author: David K. Cundiff, Independent researcher, davidkcundiff{at}gmail.com
Authors’ contributions
DKC acts as guarantor; conceived and designed the study, acquired and analysed the data, interpreted the study findings, drafted the manuscript, critically reviewed and edited the manuscript and tables, and approved the final version for publication.
CW designed software programs in R to format and population weight the data, aided with the SAS statistical analysis, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version for publication.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
None reported. Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Funding/Support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the acquisition of the data for this analysis by the IHME. The data were provided to the authors as volunteer collaborators with IHME.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor
While IHME GBD faculty and staff by virtue of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grants provided the raw data for this analysis, they did not vet the analysis or sponsor the manuscript.
Additional Contributors
Martin Sebera, from the Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Sports Studies Masaryk University, Czech Republic, critiqued statistical aspects of the manuscript and provided useful input. Pavel Grasgruber, from Masaryk University, Czech Republic, provided suggestions after reviewing the manuscript. We thank Scott Glenn and Brent Bell from IHME who supplied us with the GBD risk factor exposure data for the risk factors and for BMI data.
Data sharing statement
The raw, unformatted data used in this analysis is now out of date. The 2019 GBD data on all the variables in this analysis may be obtained from the IHME by volunteer collaborating researchers. The formatted database, SAS codes and Excel spreadsheets on which this analysis is based are posted on the Mendeley data repository: https://data.mendeley.com/v1/datasets/publish-confirmation/g6b39zxck4/6
STROBE checklist
This report follows the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for reporting global health estimates.34
Appendix 1.
Bradford Hill causality criteria based assessment methodology for BMI formula detailed
The Bradford Hill causality criteria, enumerated by the English occupational physician and epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill, are the gold standard assessment tools to test causality of risk factors related to health outcomes.3 The relevant causality criteria included #1 strength, #2 experimentation, #3 consistency, #4 dose-response (biological gradient), #5 temporality, #6 analogy, #7 plausibility, (8) specificity, and #9 coherence.
A literature search revealed no published methodological precedents for statistically modeling and validating the relationship between mean cohort BMIs of worldwide countries and subnational regions/provinces/states and their corresponding dietary and other risk factors. In considering many candidate methodologies involving univariate and multiple regression analysis, we sought a methodology with good performance with as many Bradford Hill causality criteria as possible. Of the candidate statistical modeling strategies, the methodology for deriving the BMI multiple regression formula that will be detailed in Appendix 2 functioned best. So, after deriving the BMI formula, we formulated the following Bradford Hill causality criteria scoring methodology for this unprecedented purpose.
Bradford Hill causal criteria testing methodology applied to current study
The nine original Bradford Hill criteria were each scored as:
“5” very strongly supporting causality,
“4” strongly supporting causality,
“3” moderately strongly supporting causality,
“2” supporting causality,
“1” weakly supporting causality, and
“0” not supporting causality
The scoring for each Bradford Hill causal criterion was as follows:
Strength: The correlation coefficient, r, of the worldwide multiple regression derived BMI formula with BMI (dependent variable) and BMI risk factors (independent variables) assessed strength.
Scoring of strength:
5=BMI formula regressed with BMI r≥0.50 and p<0.0001
4=BMI formula regressed with BMI 0.50>r≥0.40 and p<0.0001
3=BMI formula regressed with BMI 0.40>r≥0.30 and p<0.0001
2=BMI formula regressed with BMI 0.30>r≥0.20 and p<0.0001
1=BMI formula regressed with BMI 0.20>r≥0.10 and p<0.0001
0=BMI formula regressed with BMI r<0.10 or p≥0.0001
Experiment: Dr. Hill thought that evidence drawn from experimentation, including in epidemiologic studies, may lead to the strongest support for causal inference.3 We used the bootstrap method to test Hill’s “experiment” criterion. Random number generation of 20 subgroups each with 100 cohorts (with replacements) derived 20 standardized BMI formulas to compare with the standardized worldwide BMI formula.
Scoring of experiment:
5=In all 20 bootstrap trials each with 100 random cohorts, 415 RCT1-RCT20 of BMI formulas regressed with RCT1-RCT20 of BMIs, respectively: r≥0.50 and p<0.0001
4= In at least 15 out of 20 bootstrap trials each with 100 random cohorts, RCT1-RCT20 of BMI formulas regressed with RCT1-RCT20 of BMIs, respectively: r≥0.50 and p<0.0001.
3= In at least 15 out of 20 bootstrap trials each with 100 random cohorts, RCT1-RCT20 of BMI formulas regressed with RCT1-RCT20 of BMIs, respectively: r≥0.40 and p<0.0001.
2= In at least 10 out of 20 bootstrap trials each with 100 random cohorts, RCT1-RCT20 of BMI formulas regressed with RCT1-RCT20 of BMIs, respectively: r≥0.30 and p<0.0001.
1= In at least 5 out of 20 bootstrap trials each with 100 random cohorts, RCT1-RCT20 of BMI formulas regressed with RCT1-RCT20 of BMIs, respectively: r≥0.30 and p<0.0001.
0=None of the above.
Consistency: For the purposes of this study, consistency between BMI and BMI formula output was determined by comparing the mean BMI and the mean BMI formula output in each of the following 37 subgroups:
We divided the world’s population by quartiles of socio-demographic index (SDI)— see Supplementary Table 1 for definition of SDI.
A variable, “continents,” allowed for analyses of the cohorts from countries from each of the six inhabited continents.
The four countries (UK, USA, Mexico, and Japan) with subnational data on BMI and the risk factors were grouped together to compare the BMI formula output with the overall mean BMI in those four countries.
Based on the total kcal/day of the 13 foods that increased BMI (six animal foods, sugary beverages, alcohol, corn, potatoes, SFA, PUFA, and TFA), a combination variable was constructed and the world’s population divided into quartiles from the highest to lowest total kcal/day of BMI increasing foods.
Similarly to D above, based on the total kcal/day of all seven foods that decreased BMI (fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, whole grains, legumes, rice, and sweet potatoes), we divided the world’s population into quartiles from the highest to lowest in BMI decreasing foods (kcal/day).
Based on physical activity (METs/week), we divided the world’s population into quartiles from the highest to the lowest.
We evaluated dose response by dividing the BMI formula output into quartiles from the highest to lowest.
The four countries with subnational data were individually evaluated.
The first four of the 20 random number generated database subgroups were included in the consistency analysis.
Male and female cohorts were individually assessed.
We assessed dose-response with the BMI formula outputs after the BMI formula was harmonized with the mean and SD of worldwide mean BMI. BMI formula outputs were divided into quartiles.
For each of the 37 subgroups, the absolute differences between the means of BMI and the BMI formula output were totaled (e.g., continent Africa BMI formula output – mean BMI for Africa, etc.).
Scoring of consistency for mean cohort BMI compared with BMI formula output for each of the 37 subgroups:
5=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was ≤ 0.30 kg/M2.
4=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was ≤ 0.40 kg/M2.
3=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was ≤ 0.50 kg/M2.
2=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was ≤ 0.60 kg/M2.
1=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was ≤ 1.0 kg/M2.
0=The mean of the absolute differences between mean BMI and BMI formula output was > 1.0 kg/M2.
Dose-response (biological gradient): Dr. Hill thought that a clear dose-response effect on the incidence of disease with exposure to a single risk factor was the clearest evidence of a causal relationship. In this analysis levels of a multivariable regression derived BMI formula outputs in quartiles were related to mean BMIs in those quartiles (Table 3. subgroups #34-#37).
As with consistency, scoring of dose-response was based on this mean absolute difference of BMI and BMI formula output when the BMI formula output was divided into quartiles:
5= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages ≤ 0.30 kg/M2.
4= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages ≤ 0.40 kg/M2.
3= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages ≤ 0.50 kg/M2.
2= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages ≤ 0.60 kg/M2.
1= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages ≤ 1.0 BMI units.
0= The BMI formula output versus mean BMI absolute differences from each of the four quartiles averages > 1.0 kg/M2.
Temporality: Dr. Hill said, “Temporality refers to the necessity that the cause precedes the effect in time.”3 Dr. Hill was an occupational physician before the current availability in nutritional epidemiology of data on trends over 28 years of 20 components of worldwide diets along with the global BMI trend. Consequently, now it is fair to test temporality by deriving a standardized multiple regression formula with BMI trend, measured by the slope of the least squared regression line (LSRL) over 1990-2017, as the dependent variable. The independent variables consisted of the LSRL trends over 1990-2017 of the same dietary components, physical activity, and childhood underweight as in the original BMI formula—but not sex. The signs of the risk factors in the BMI trend formula were determined as follows:
If the sign of the risk factor in Table 4 (BMI basic trend statistics) was “+” and the r was “+”, then the sign in the BMI trend formula was +.
If the sign of the risk factor in Table 4 was “-“ and the r was “-,” then the sign in the BMI trend formula was “+”. If the risk factor mean value was trending down and the correlation coefficient of the risk factor with the BMI trend was negative, this risk factor tread would be in alignment with an up-trending BMI.
If the sign of the risk factor in Table 4 was “-“ and the r was “+,” then the sign in the BMI trend formula was “-”.
If the sign of the risk factor in Table 4 was “+“ and the r was “-,” then the sign in the BMI trend formula was “-”.
Supplementary Table 6 shows the derivation of the BMI trend formula with standardized BMI trend (dependent variable) versus standardized risk factor trends (independent variables). As with the derivation of the BMI formula (Supplementary Table 5), the coefficients of the risk factors in the formula were adjusted to equate to the trend percent weights.
Scoring of temporality: The multiple regression derived BMI trend formula output versus the BMI trend r (correlation coefficient) determined the score:
5=r≤0.50 and p<0.0001.
4=0.50>r≤0.40 and p<0.0001.
3=0.40>r≤0.30 and p<0.0001.
2=0.30>r≤0.20 and p<0.0001.
1=0.20>r≤0.10 and p<0.0001.
0=r<0.10 or p≥0.0001
Analogy: High BMI was among the four metabolic risk factors that were strongly associated major metabolic risk factors for non-communicable diseases were high fasting plasma glucose (FPG). low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high systolic blood pressure (SBP).
We tested analogy by the strength of the correlations of BMI with FPG, BMI with LDL-C, and BMI with SBP in univariate analysis.
Scoring of analogy:
5=BMI correlated with all three other metabolic risk factors showed r ≥0.500, p<0.0001
for all three.
4= BMI correlated with the three other metabolic risk factors showed r≥ 0.500, p<0.0001
for two of the three.
3= BMI correlated with the three other metabolic risk factors showed r≥ 0.400, p<0.0001
for two of the three.
2= BMI correlated with the three other metabolic risk factors showed r≥ 0.300, p<0.0001
for two of the three.
1=BMI correlated with the three other metabolic risk factors showed r ≥0.200, p<0.0001
for two of the three.
0= None of the above.
Plausibility: To test plausibility that the BMI formula could accurately predict mean BMI of cohorts, we looked to find if any of our findings were at variance with the preponderance of studies published. We searched the medical literature particularly for systematic reviews of the relationships of foods and other variables with BMI.
Scoring of plausibility:
5=None of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients was at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
4= One of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients was at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
3= Two of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients were at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
2=Three of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients were at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
1=Four of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients were at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
0= Five or more of the BMI formula risk factor percent weight coefficients were at variance with the preponderance of the medical literature about risk factors for high BMI.
Specificity: Either the BMI formula derived is unique or not. Scoring of specificity: 5=The BMI formula derived is unique and can model no other metabolic risk factor, other risk factor, or health outcome.
0= The BMI formula derived is not unique and can model at least one other metabolic risk factor, other risk factor, or health outcome.
Coherence: According to Dr. Hill, ”…cause and effect interpretation of our data should not seriously conflict with the generally known facts of the natural history and biology of the disease.”3 In this analysis of BMI associated with BMI formula estimates, coherence was the numerical total score of the above eight relevant causality criteria each on a 0-5 scale. The maximum score was 40. Scoring of coherence:
5=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria=35-40.
4=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria=30-34.
3=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria=25-29.
2=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria=20-24.
1=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria=15-24.
0=Score on the first eight Bradford Hill causation criteria<15.
Appendix 2. The derivation of the BMI formula
Population attributable fraction (PAF) derivation systematic literature review methodology by WHO and IHME
Because of wide variations in definitions of risk factors and health outcomes in reports of risk factor-health outcome correlations, the World Health Organization in 2002 published a new framework, termed comparative risk assessment (CRA), for quantifying deaths and burden of disease caused by risk factors.15 Goals were to increase the rigor of population health estimates and to improve the compatibility of the estimates of different groups of investigators studying different populations. CRA can be divided into six key steps:16
Inclusion of risk–outcome pairs in the analysis;
estimation from literature reviews of relative risk as a function of exposure;
estimation from literature reviews of exposure levels and distributions;
determination from literature reviews of the counterfactual level of exposure, the level of exposure with minimum risk called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL);
computation of population attributable fractions (PAFs) and attributable burden; and
estimation from literature reviews of mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors
Originally, most PAFs were calculated for single risk factors related to single health outcomes (e.g., cigarette smoking and lung cancer). This methodology has now evolved to encompass 550 risk factor-health outcome pairs in the latest risk factor article published by the IHME.16 Additionally, multiple risk factors with PAFs for the same health outcome have been reported. Data inputs for CRAs have depended on systematic literature reviews rather than GBD data on risk factors and health outcomes.
For the purposes of risk factor-health outcome pair analysis, high BMI has been considered a risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes, cancer outcomes, etc., but not itself a health outcome for modeling with CRA.
Population attributable fraction (PAF) derivation AI analytics methodology for this analysis
The methodology in this paper is offered as an alternative to CRA to model PFAs for the risk factors for BMI. The case will be made that PAFs can be derived directly from IHME GBD data. For validation, the BMI formula derived was tested with the nine Bradford Hill causality criteria (Appendix 1).
Supplementary Table 5 shows the BMI multiple regression formula derivation with mean cohort BMI (dependent variable) versus
a 20 dietary risk factor combination variable,
physical activity,
child underweight, and
sex (independent variables).
To maximize the functionality of the BMI formula when tested with the nine Bradford Hill causality criteria, all 20 dietary variables underwent the following four empirically derived adjustments:
multiplied times their mean kcal/day values (Column B),
multiplied times their R2 values in univariate correlation with BMI (Column C),
SFA, PUFA, and TFA multiplied times 0.46, an adjustment for fatty acids extracted (i.e., oils and solid fats) versus coming from within dietary foods (Column D) In determining the portion of SFA, PUFA, and TFA added in addition to these fatty acids in the animal and plant foods, we used an adjustment factor (fatty acids * 0.46), adapted from the website “Our World in Data.”17 This adjustment factor differentiated the fatty acids in individual foods (54% of the total) from the added fatty acids (46% of the total), and
the parameter estimates from the BMI versus risk factors multiple regression analysis (Column F).
To derive the PAFs of each of the risk factors in the BMI formula, we used the following steps:
Assign the signs of the risk factors in Column A according to the signs of the risk factor correlations with BMI, including leaving positive signs for fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds.
Calculate the adjusted dietary risk factor coefficients (Column F (F1-F23) = Column B (B1-B23) * Column C (C1-C23 * Column D (D1=D23) * Column E (E1-E23)).
Copy Column F coefficients (F1-F23) to Column H (H1-H23) for a further adjustment.
Multiply the copied coefficients in Column H (H1-H23) times the R2 value of the entire BMI formula correlated with BMI (F26=H26=0.8585) and divide the result by the sum of the 23 adjusted coefficients from step 3=1.4071 (F24) to get the BMI formula adjustment factor (F26=0.6101).
Multiply (F26=0.6101) * 100 to give a multiplier (F27=61.01) to derive PAFs for the coefficients in Column H (H1-H23).
Multiply (F27=61.01) times the coefficients in Column H to get the risk factor PAFs (H1-H23) and the not multicollinearity adjusted BMI formula total percent weight (H24=85.85%).
Note that the above BMI formula contains the multicollinearities of fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds (i.e., fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds correlate positively with 10 BMI increasing foods and correlate negatively with the four other plant foods). Consequently, we need to adjust the BMI formula to account for these multicollinearities by the following:
Add Column I and Column J that initially have the same BMI risk factors and coefficients as Column G and Column H.
Switch the signs on fruits, vegetables, and nuts and seeds from “+” in Column H to “-“ in Column J to adjust for the multicollinearities.
Run the multicollinearities adjusted BMI formula in step 2 on SAS software.
Check the r of the resulting multicollinearity adjusted BMI formula correlated with BMI (r=0.8998 (J25)).
Calculate the multicollinearity adjusted BMI formula R2 by squaring the r (R2=0.8096 (J26)).
Multiply J26=0.8096 times 100 to derive an adjusted total PAF for the final BMI formula (J28=80.96%).
Divide the final BMI formula total percent weight (J28=80.96%) by the sum of the non-collinearity adjusted BMI formula Column H coefficients (H24=85.85) to derive a BMI formula coefficient multiplier (J27=0.9432) to account for the multicollinearities.
Multiply the Column J coefficients (J1-J23) by the multicollinearity adjusting BMI formula coefficient multiplier (J27=0.9432) to derive the final BMI formula coefficients (J1-J23) as PAFs, totaling the final BMI formula total percent weight (J24=80.96%).
Test the validity of the BMI formula with the nine Bradford Hill causality criteria (Appendix 1).
Footnotes
Manuscript revised and edited along with the tables.
References
