4.6 Article

Associations of multiple toxic metal exposures with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: NHANES 2011-2018

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1301319

关键词

MASLD; mercury; manganese; lead; selenium; cadmium; NHANES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed a significant association between blood cadmium and lead exposure levels and the occurrence of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MASLD) in a representative sample of US adults, while no significant association was observed with other metal exposures.
BackgroundThe occurrence of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MASLD) is driven by multiple factors including obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance. However, epidemiological research investigating the association between metal exposure and MASLD occurrence remains limited.MethodsWe conducted a large cross-sectional study with 6,520 participants who were involved in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2011 and 2018. Using generalized linear regression, we examined the relationship between five heavy metals (mercury, manganese, lead, selenium, cadmium) and MASLD. Furthermore, restricted cubic spline models and weighted quantile sum (WQS) analysis were employed to characterize the exposure-response relationship between the five metals and MASLD.ResultsHigher blood selenium levels were associated with an increased likelihood of MASLD among US adults. Blood lead exposure was also positively correlated with MASLD risk. However, there was no significant association observed between blood cadmium, mercury, manganese levels, and MASLD risk. Among the five metals, blood cadmium exposure accounted for the highest proportion of MASLD risk.ConclusionOur study indicated the significant association between blood cadmium and lead exposure levels and the occurrence of MASLD in a representative sample of US adults.

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

4.6
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