4.7 Article

Indirect Predictors of Visceral Adipose Tissue in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Comparison of Methods

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13082494

关键词

polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS); visceral obesity; densitometry (DXA); waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); android obesity; anthropometry

资金

  1. Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine II [502-14-02221355-41164]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared ten different methods of VAT estimation in PCOS women and found that WHtR, WHT.5R, WC, BMI, and LAP had the highest predictive value. Different age groups of PCOS patients had different cut-off values for VAT identification.
Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation, is a part of a polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) phenotype. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provides a gold standard measurement of VAT. This study aimed to compare ten different indirect methods of VAT estimation in PCOS women. The study included 154 PCOS and 68 age- and BMI-matched control women. Subjects were divided into age groups: 18-30 y.o. and 30-40 y.o. Analysis included: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), waist/height 0.5 (WHT.5R), visceral adipose index (VAI), lipid accumulation product (LAP), and fat mass index (FMI). VAT accumulation, android-to-gynoid ratio (A/G), and total body fat (TBF) was measured by DXA. ROC analysis revealed that WHtR, WHT.5R, WC, BMI, and LAP demonstrated the highest predictive value in identifying VAT in the PCOS group. Lower cut-off values of BMI (23.43 kg/m(2)) and WHtR (0.45) were determined in the younger PCOS group and higher thresholds of WHtR (0.52) in the older PCOS group than commonly used. Measuring either: WHtR, WHT.5R, WC, BMI, or LAP, could help identify a subgroup of PCOS patients at high cardiometabolic risk. The current observations reinforce the importance of using special cut-offs to identify VAT, dependent on age and PCOS presence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据