Influence of Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet and Level of Physical Activity with Liver Steatosis in People Aged > 50 Years and with a BMI > 25 kg/m2: Association with Biochemical Markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The main objective of this study is to determine the accuracy of different biochemical markers of hepatic steatosis and to correlate liver steatosis with adherence to the Mediterranean diet and level of physical activity. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out, including subjects over 50 years of age, with a BMI > 25 kg/m2, but excluding any patient with documented hepatic pathology other than hepatic steatosis. Participants were divided into two groups: patients with hepatic steatosis diagnosed by ultrasound (SG) and a control group of individuals without hepatic steatosis (CG). The level of physical activity was recorded by the IPAQ-SF questionnaire and the adherence to the Mediterranean diet was recorded using the PREDIMED questionnaire. Biochemical markers analyzed included the Hepatic steatosis index (HSI), AST-to-Platelet ratio (APRI) and Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4). Results: A total of 116 patients were included, 71 belonging to the SG and 45 to the CG. A total of 58.6% of the patients showed low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, 35.4% moderate adherence and 6% high adherence. The median estimated physical activity was 495 METS, with most participants reporting light activity. In the SG, significantly higher HSI values were observed (p < 0.001). A cut-off point of a HSI of 40 was established, with a sensitivity of 73.2% and a specificity of 65.8%. Significantly higher FIB-4 values (p = 0.039) were also observed in the SG. A cut-off point of FIB-4 was set at 0.27, with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 57.9%. Patients in the SG showed lower scores in the PREDIMED. Patients in the SG tended to show lower METS scores. However, the higher number of patients with intense activity in the CG group stands out (p = 0.008). Conclusions: The HSI and FIB-4 showed a significant correlation with liver steatosis. Hepatic steatosis is associated with low adherence to the Mediterranean diet and patients with hepatic steatosis tended to have lower METS scores.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".