ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing metabolic health in a general population: A comparative analysis of three definitions in the Tromsø Study 2015-2016.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Obesity-related thyroid reflections: from weight gain to weight loss.European thyroid journal · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of metabolically healthy individuals with obesity (MHO) has gained considerable interest. Nevertheless, the lack of a standardized definition for metabolic health complicates the comparison of the prevalence and health implications of MHO.
aimTo compare three definitions of metabolic health in terms of their prevalence, overlap, and frequency with which criteria are met within a general population.
methodsWe used data from 20 581 women and men aged 40-99 years attending the seventh survey of the Tromsø Study (Tromsø7) in 2015-2016. Participants were classified as metabolically healthy (MH) by definitions A) resembling metabolic syndrome (MetS) requiring ≤1/4 MetS components; B) strict requiring fulfillment of 0/4 MetS components, and C) empirically derived definition requiring fulfillment of 0/3 components including diabetes, elevated blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio. Prevalence of MH was assessed descriptively in categories of normal weight, overweight and obesity based on body mass index (BMI). We used Venn diagrams to present the overlap between the three definitions applied to identify MH individuals, and the frequency of fulfilled components in metabolically unhealthy (MU) individuals (not classified as MH). All analyses were stratified by sex.
resultsPrevalence of MH was higher in women and participants in lower BMI categories. Using definition A, 50% of women and 38% of men with obesity were classified as MH. Under definition B, 18% of women and 10% of men with obesity were considered MH. Definition C resulted in prevalences of 29% and 18%, in women and men with obesity, respectively. Blood pressure was the most common component in MU individuals, met by 76%-89% of MU women and 81%-93% of MU men, depending on the definition.
conclusionThe considerable variation in MH prevalence across different definitions underscores the need for a consensus definition, to further establish public prevention and clinical treatment strategies.
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.