Evaluation of visceral adipose tissue thresholds for elevated metabolic syndrome risk across diverse populations: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Beyond obesity, excess levels of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) significantly contribute to the risk of developing metabolic syndrome (MetS), although thresholds for increased risk vary based on population, regions of interest, and units of measure employed. We sought to determine whether a common threshold exists that is indicative of heightened MetS risk across all populations, accounting for sex, age, BMI, and race/ethnicity. A systematic literature review was conducted in September 2023, presenting threshold values for elevated MetS risk. Standardization equations harmonized the results from DXA, CT, and MRI systems to facilitate a comparison of threshold variations across studies. A total of 52 papers were identified. No single threshold could accurately indicate elevated risk for both males and females across varying BMI, race/ethnicity, and age groups. Thresholds fluctuated from 70 to 165.9 cm2, with reported values consistently lower in females. Generally, premenopausal females and younger adults manifested elevated risks at lower VAT compared to their older counterparts. Notably, Asian populations exhibited elevated risks at lower VAT areas (70–136 cm2) compared to Caucasian populations (85.6–165.9 cm2). All considered studies reported associations of VAT without accommodating covariates. No single VAT area threshold for elevated MetS risk was discernible post‐harmonization by technology, units of measure, and region of interest. This review summarizes available evidence for MetS risk assessment in clinical practice. Further exploration of demographic‐specific interactions between VAT area and other risk factors is imperative to comprehensively delineate overarching MetS risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".