ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Body composition as a complementary tool for detection of metabolic syndrome 6 years postpartum: a St. Carlos Cohort follow-up.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
Background and aims: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent pregnancy complication associated with long-term cardiometabolic risk, including metabolic syndrome (MetS). This study aimed to assess differences in body composition and metabolic health 6 years postpartum based on prior GDM diagnosis and to identify body composition cut-off values predictive of MetS. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included 604 women from the prospective St. Carlos Cohort in Spain, who had no subsequent pregnancies and complete body composition data 6 years postpartum. Body composition was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and MetS was diagnosed per harmonized criteria. Statistical analyses included ROC curves to establish diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off points. Results: Women with prior GDM had a twofold increased risk of developing MetS (26.6 vs. 14.6%). However, waist circumference or elevated BMI and waist-to-height ratio were not significantly different between groups. ROC analysis identified that body composition parameters, particularly fat mass (FM), visceral fat, and FM/Fat Free Mass ratio, as having high predictive value for MetS, regardless of GDM history (AUC ≥ 0.8). Women with MetS showed significantly higher FM and lower relative muscle mass and function. Diagnostic models showed high negative predictive values (≥90%) for most body composition parameters making them effective for excluding MetS. Conclusion: GDM is a significant predictor of MetS. However, body composition, especially increased adiposity and reduced relative muscle mass, provides valuable clinical insights beyond traditional anthropometric measures in postpartum women. The proposed cut-off values for body composition parameters may serve as effective, non-invasive tools for early MetS detection in postpartum care.
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.