ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Using easy-to-collect indices to develop and validate models for identifying metabolic syndrome and pre-metabolic syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing high expectations in patients undergoing corneal transplantation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Two temporally validated diagnostic models for arterial stiffness using routine clinical indicators: a practical tool for resource-limited settings.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Beyond HOMA-IR: Comparative Evaluation of Insulin Resistance and Anthropometric Indices Across Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Metabolic Syndrome Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to develop and validate models for identifying individuals at high risk for metabolic syndrome (MetS) and pre-MetS using easily collectible indices. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the Ningxia Cardiovascular Disorders Survey (NCDS) in China, collected between January 2020 and December 2021. The study population comprised 10,520 participants with complete demographic, anthropometric, and laboratory data. The diagnostic models for MetS were developed using five easily collectible indicators. The performance of the models was compared with that of Lipid Accumulation Product (LAP), Triglyceride-Glucose (TyG) Index, and Waist-to-Height Ratio (WHtR). These same models were subsequently applied to pre-MetS detection as a secondary analysis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Hosmer and Lemeshow test, bootstrap method, Brier score and Decision Curve Analysis were employed to evaluate the performance of the models. Results: Model 1 comprised factors such as WC, SBP, DBP and gender. In contrast, Model 2 included all the variables from Model 1 while additionally incorporating FPG. In the training set, the AUC for Model 1 and Model 2 were 0.914 and 0.924, respectively. The AUC for Model 1 and Model 2 in identifying the presence of pre-MetS and MetS conditions were 0.883 and 0.902, respectively. In the external validation set, the AUC for Model 1 and Model 2 in identifying the presence of MetS were 0.929 and 0.934, respectively. For detecting pre-MetS and MetS conditions, the AUC for Model 1 and Model 2 were 0.885 and 0.902, respectively. Compared to TyG, LAP, and WHtR, model 1 and 2 exhibited a superior ability to identify MetS as well as pre-MetS and MetS conditions in both the training and validation sets. Conclusions: Our models offered an easy, accurate and efficient tool for identifying MetS and pre-MetS, which might be used in large-scale population screening or self-health management at home.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.