Abstract 193: Contribution of Visceral and Epicardial Adipose Tissues to the Variation in the Cardiometabolic Risk of Apparently Healthy Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Relative contributions of abdominal versus epicardial adipose tissues to the cardiometabolic profile of young and healthy adults are unknown. We investigated the associations between subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (SAT), visceral abdominal adipose tissue (VAT) and epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) with markers of the cardiometabolic profile in young and apparently healthy males and females. METHOD AND RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty young and apparently healthy subjects (48% (134 of 280) male; age 18 to 35 years; BMI <30 kg/m2) underwent magnetic resonance imaging after voluntary recruitment in the community. We quantified SAT, VAT and EAT. Plasma cardiometabolic risk profile was assessed for each subject (blood pressure, lipid profile, fasting glucose). Associations with markers of the cardiometabolic profile were stronger for VAT and EAT than for SAT. In multivariable regression analyses including all three adipose tissues and taking into account gender and age, only VAT maintained significant associations to systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio, triglycerides and apolipoproteins B/A1 ratio. In an effort to identify the strongest office-based predictor of visceral adiposity in this young and apparently healthy young adult sample, we determined that while BMI, waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio were all associated to VAT in univariable analyses (p<0.05 for all), only WC remained independently associated to VAT in multivariable analysis (p<0.001). Concurrently, WC was also an independent predictor of EAT in multivariable analysis (p<0.001). CONCLUSION - Because visceral adipose tissues - EAT, and to a greater extent VAT - are more strongly and widely associated with the cardiometabolic profile than is SAT, we believe that assessing visceral adiposity is relevant in young and apparently healthy adults. Beyond simply measuring BMI, the addition of WC measurement in young and apparently healthy adults improves the prediction of visceral adiposity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".