ArticleLipids in health and disease2025
Linking metabolic score for visceral fat to heart failure: insights from national health and nutrition examination survey 2003-2018.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The metabolic score for visceral fat and risk of peripheral arterial disease in hypertension patients: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Association of metabolic score for visceral fat with the prevalence, new-onset, and progression of aortic valve calcification: evidence from a prospective observational study and genetic analyses.Lipids in health and disease · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVisceral fat has become increasingly recognized as a key modifiable risk factor in the development of heart failure (HF). This study aims to investigate the link between the Metabolic Score for Visceral Fat (METS-VF) and the prevalence of HF, and evaluate whether METS-VF could improve the detection of HF in the general population.
methods24,681 subjects from the 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were included in the analysis. HF was determined according to self-reported medical history.
resultsThe overall prevalence of HF was found to be 2.91%. After adjusting for relevant confounders, each one-standard-deviation increase in METS-VF was associated with a 75.4% higher risk of prevalent HF. Participants with METS-VF values in the highest quartile had a 2.731-fold greater risk of prevalent HF than those in the lowest quartile. The relationship between METS-VF and HF appeared nearly linear based on smooth-curve modeling, and subgroup analyses confirmed this association across different demographic groups. When METS-VF was added to standard cardiovascular risk factors, there was a slight improvement in HF discrimination (AUC: 0.867 vs. 0.873, P = 0.003). Reclassification metrics also highlighted the incremental value of including METS-VF.
conclusionThe findings of this study demonstrated a strong, linear relationship between METS-VF and the prevalence of HF, suggesting that METS-VF could be an adjunctive tool for improving HF screening in the general population.
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.