ArticleLipids in health and disease2025
Body roundness index as a novel anthropometric predictor of sarcopenia in patients with cancer: a bicontinental cohort study across Chinese and American populations.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSarcopenia, the progressive depletion of skeletal muscle mass and strength, worsens daily living outcomes and survival in individuals diagnosed with cancer. It arises from complex interactions between primary malignancy, antineoplastic interventions, and treatment-related sequelae, making early risk assessment a clinical priority. The body roundness index (BRI), an anthropometric metric superior to body mass index in body composition profiling, has shown diagnostic utility across metabolic and cardiovascular domains. However, its prognostic value in cancer-associated sarcopenia remains underexplored. This bicontinental study pioneers the clinical validation of BRI for sarcopenia prediction, proposing an objective quantification framework to optimize early screening and personalized therapeutic strategies in oncological practice.
methodsA cross-national dual-cohort design was implemented, using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey multi-cancer cohort (n = 1,688) and a Chinese gastrointestinal oncology cohort (n = 713). Multivariable logistic regression adjusted demographics, lifestyle, comorbidities, cancer-related characteristics, and laboratory markers to examine the independent association between BRI and sarcopenia. Subgroup analyses with race- and cancer type-specific interaction terms were conducted to assess effect modification patterns, whereas nonlinear relationships were examined using smooth curve fitting and threshold effect models to identify critical thresholds. A predictive tool was developed and validated through receiver operating curve analysis and decision curve analysis to assess its diagnostic performance and clinical utility.
resultsBRI was positively associated with sarcopenia risk in both cohorts (US: odds ration [OR] = 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48-1.77, P < 0.001; Chinese: OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.82-3.15, P < 0.001), with distinct threshold effects observed (US cohort critical BRI value = 6.73; Chinese cohort critical BRI value = 3.01). The predictive model showed good performance (US cohort area under the curve (AUC): 0.80 training, 0.82 validation; Chinese cohort AUC: 0.66 training, 0.78 validation). Decision curve analysis for both cohorts exhibited broad clinical applicability.
conclusionThis study is the first to establish BRI independently predicts sarcopenia risk in patients with cancer. Additionally, a BRI-based model integrating sex and age combines the advantages of accuracy, specificity, and cost-effectiveness, demonstrating significant clinical utility.
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.