ArticleScience progress
Body fat ratio and gallstone disease risk: A cross-sectional study identifying a nonlinear risk threshold at 29.1.
Article in Science progress. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTraditional indicators of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI), fail to precisely capture the independent impact of fat distribution on gallstone disease (GSD). This study aimed to investigate the nonlinear association between body fat ratio (BFR) and the risk of GSD and to identify a critical threshold value.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional observational analysis of 1952 adults from the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). BFR was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and GSD was defined by standardized questionnaire data. Weighted logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS), and threshold effect models were employed to examine the association between BFR and GSD risk, as well as to determine the inflection point.ResultsA significant J-shaped nonlinear association was observed between BFR and GSD risk (P for non-linearity < 0.001). Threshold analysis identified 29.1% (95% CI: 27.5-30.7%) as the critical inflection point, beyond which each 1% increase in BFR was associated with a 14% higher odds of GSD (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.19). After multivariate adjustment, each additional 1% increase in BFR remained independently associated with a 7% increased risk (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13). Compared with participants in the lowest quartile, those in the highest quartile (BFR≥39.2%) exhibited a 2.66-fold higher risk of GSD. Subgroup analyses demonstrated stronger associations in males (OR ≈ 1.12 per 1% BFR increase) and Hispanics (OR ≈ 1.20 per 1% BFR increase).ConclusionsBFR of ≥29.1% represents a critical threshold beyond which GSD risk significantly increases. These findings suggest an association that warrants further investigation into whether routine monitoring of BFR could serve as a valuable screening tool in high-risk populations, and precise intervention strategies should consider gender and ethnic differences to effectively mitigate metabolic-related gallstone disease.
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.