Anthropometric measures, predicted visceral adipose tissue and biomarkers of chronic inflammation.
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Cross-sectional observational study without direct imaging validation or longitudinal outcomes.
PubMed 37814451 · doi:10.1111/eci.14104
What was done
A cross-sectional study of 2,038 men and women aged 46 to 73 years. Correlation and linear regression analyses were performed to compare the relationships between systemic inflammatory biomarkers and four standard anthropometric measures versus 10 published predicted visceral adipose tissue (VAT) equations.
What was found
Compared with standard anthropometric measures, predicted VAT equations explained a greater proportion of variance in inflammatory markers: - In males: CRP (R² = .075, p = .001), IL-6 (R² = .060, p = .001), TNF-α (R² = .017, p = .005), resistin (R² = .011, p = .012), monocyte (R² = .027, p = .001), eosinophil (R² = .012, p = .01), and basophil (R² = .015, p = .002) levels. - In females: C3 (R² = .175, p = .001), IL-6 (R² = .090, p = .001), TNF-α (R² = .036, p = .001), adiponectin (R² = .121, p = .001), adiponectin-to-leptin ratio (R² = .444, p = .001), resistin (R² = .025, p = .001), white blood cell count (R² = .057, p = .001), neutrophils (R² = .061, p = .001), and lymphocytes (R² = .020, p = .001).
Why it matters
Equations estimating visceral fat levels account for more variance in chronic inflammation markers than standard anthropometry alone, providing a low-cost surrogate for metabolic health profiling.
Limits
The study is cross-sectional, preventing causal or temporal conclusions. Visceral fat was estimated via equations rather than direct imaging (such as CT or MRI). The proportion of variance explained for most inflammatory markers was very modest (R² < 0.10), and the population was restricted to adults aged 46–73 years.
Cited by
- supports Visceral fat accumulation is associated with increased systemic inflammation.