ArticleEndocrine2025
Association of leptin levels and relative leptin deficiency with steatotic liver disease in the general population.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeptin replacement therapy has shown promising results in treating metabolic steatohepatitis (MASH) patients with leptin levels below the 25th percentile for their sex and BMI category (“relative leptin deficiency”, RLD). However, the clinical utility of the RLD definition for identifying high-risk individuals for liver disease in general screening populations remains unclear.
methodsWe analyzed the association between leptin levels and steatotic liver disease (SLD) in 636 participants from the screening population of the SAKKOPI registry (2007–2020) who underwent metabolic phenotyping, leptin measurement, and liver assessment including ultrasound, controlled attenuation parameter (CAP), and transient elastography (kPa). SLD was categorized as MASLD, MetALD, ALD, cryptogenic SLD, or no SLD. RLD was defined using NHANES III-based sex- and BMI-specific cutoffs. Leptin was analyzed categorically (RLD vs. non-RLD) and continuously, including leptin-to-BMI ratios (ln[leptin]/ln[BMI]) to assess leptin as a marker independent of body mass.
resultsEach two-fold increase in leptin was independently associated with MASLD (adjusted RRR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20–2.09, p = 0.001) and MetALD (RRR 1.74, 95% CI 1.02–2.98, p = 0.043). Leptin-to-BMI ratio analysis confirmed this relationship, with the highest quintile showing 83.7 dB/m higher CAP values compared to the lowest quintile (p < 0.001). Individuals classified as having RLD (n = 112, 18%) demonstrated significantly better metabolic health and lower SLD prevalence (27% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). The leptin/BMI ratio showed specificity for steatosis parameters (CAP, fatty liver index) but no association with liver stiffness (kPa, p = 0.55) or APRI. However, FIB-4 scores were higher in the lowest leptin/BMI quintile (1.27 vs. 1.11, p = 0.011), an association that persisted after age and sex adjustment.
conclusionsIn this screening cohort of the general population, NHANES III-derived RLD thresholds may not effectively identify high-risk individuals for SLD in this population, but rather appear to select metabolically healthier participants. While the persistent FIB-4 association deserves consideration, the absence of corresponding associations with direct fibrosis measurements suggests caution in interpretation. These findings indicate that current RLD definitions appear to have limited utility for risk stratification in this specific screening population, though their applicability in high-risk clinical settings requires further investigation.
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.