Visceral and Subcutaneous Abdominal Fat Predict Brain Volume Loss at Midlife in 10,001 Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal fat is increasingly linked to brain health. A total of 10,001 healthy participants were scanned on 1.5T MRI with a short whole-body MR imaging protocol. Deep learning with FastSurfer segmented 96 brain regions. Separate models segmented visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat. Regression analyses of abdominal fat types and normalized brain volumes were evaluated, controlling for age and sex. Logistic regression models determined the risk of brain total gray and white matter volume loss from the highest quartile of visceral fat and lowest quartile of these brain volumes. This cohort had an average age of 52.9 ± 13.1 years with 52.8% men and 47.2% women. Segmented visceral abdominal fat predicted lower volumes in multiple regions including: total gray matter volume (r = -.44, p<.001), total white matter volume (r =-.41, p<.001), hippocampus (r = -.39, p< .001), frontal cortex (r = -.42, p<.001), temporal lobes (r = -.44, p<.001), parietal lobes (r = -.39, p<.001), occipital lobes (r =-.37, p<.001). Women showed lower brain volumes than men related to increased visceral fat. Visceral fat predicted increased risk for lower total gray matter (age 20-39: OR = 5.9; age 40-59, OR = 5.4; 60-80, OR = 5.1) and low white matter volume: (age 20-39: OR = 3.78; age 40-59, OR = 4.4; 60-80, OR = 5.1). Higher subcutaneous fat is related to brain volume loss. Elevated visceral and subcutaneous fat predicted lower brain volumes and may represent novel modifiable factors in determining brain health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".