Background: The aim was to evaluate the effect different types of abdominal fat have on NAFLD development and the effects of abdominal fat has on the association between Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and NALFD. Methods: Data was collected from the cross-sectional NHANES dataset (2017–2018 cycle). Using the controlled attenuation parameter (USG CAP, dB/m), which measures the level of steatosis, the cohort was stratified into two groups: NAFLD(+) (≥274 dB/m) and NAFLD(-). Using complex samples analyses, associations between liver steatosis or NAFLD and types of abdominal fat area [Total abdominal (TAFA), subcutaneous (SAT), and visceral (VAT)] were determined. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to evaluate the associations between adipose tissues and NAFLD. Logistic regression was used to determine the risk [odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI)]. Participants were also classified by MetS, using the Harmonizing Definition criteria. Results: Using 1,980 participants (96,282,896 weighted), there was a significant (p<0.001) correlation between USG CAP and TAFA (r = 0.569), VAT (r = 0.645), and SAT (r = 0.479). Additionally, the risk of developing NAFLD was observed for total abdominal obesity (OR = 19.9, 95%CI: 5.1–77.8, p<0.001), visceral obesity (OR = 9.1, 95%CI: 6.2–13.5, p<0.001) and subcutaneous obesity (OR = 4.8, 95%CI: 3.2–6.9, p<0.001). Using 866 participants (44,399,696 weighted), for visceral obesity, participants with MetS and visceral obesity (OR = 18.1, 95%CI: 8.0–41.3, p<0.001) were shown to have a greater risk than participants with MetS only (OR = 6.3, 95%CI: 2.6–15.2, p<0.001). For subcutaneous obesity, again, participants with MetS and subcutaneous obesity (OR = 18.3, 95%CI: 8.0–41.9, p<0.001) were shown to have a greater risk than the MetS-only group (OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.8–22.4, p<0.001). Conclusion: TAFA, VAT, and SAT were positively associated with USG CAP values and increased the risk of developing NAFLD. Also, the type of abdominal fat depots did affect the association between MetS and NAFLD.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the leading cause of chronic hepatic disease in the World and now affects 32.4% of the population [[
Obesity is defined by the World Health Organization as an "excessive fat accumulation" and is clinically classified with the body mass index (BMI), despite BMI's known inability to differentiate between lean and fat tissues [[
Changes in fat distribution, increased accumulation of VAT, and/or impaired SAT function can reflect the dysfunctional capacity of adipose tissue to respond to metabolic demands [[
Initially, MetS was proposed as a combination of components (central obesity, high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia) that increased the risk of cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, secondary outcomes for the presence of those same factors have been identified, such as NAFLD, which is considered the hepatic manifestation of MetS [[
Even though the association between NAFLD and obesity is undeniable, little is known about how different types of adipose tissue influence NAFLD development, and large-scale cohort studies assessing this association are needed. Here, using the data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES), the effect of abdominal adipose tissue on NAFLD prevalence was evaluated. Additionally, the influence that ethnicity has on the disease was explored. Lastly, the effect of VAT and SAT on NAFLD in the presence of MetS was evaluated.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducts the NHANES, a large cross-sectional survey that systematically gathers data on medical examinations, laboratory testing, and interviews for studying a range of variables of medical importance [[
A defined set of eligibility criteria was constructed according to the patient population, intervention, comparison group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) question scheme. The PICOS question was: In participants with NAFLD, do different types of abdominal adipose tissue, when compared to participants without NAFLD, increases the prevalence and risk of developing NAFLD, as determined using the NHANES cross-sectional dataset? The eligibility criteria reflected the PICOS components and the subsequent inclusion and exclusion criteria. Therefore, the primary outcome was to evaluate how different types of abdominal adipose tissue affect liver steatosis and NAFLD. Since different ethnic groups are shown to have different distributions of abdominal adipose tissues, secondary outcomes were to examine ethnic effects on liver steatosis and NAFLD. Lastly, an alternative secondary outcome was the effect of different distributions of abdominal adipose tissues have on the MetS/NALFD interaction.
In this study, the data from the 2017–2018 cycle was used. To be included, the participants had to be 1) non-pregnant females or males, aged ≥18 years, 2) BMI ≥18.5 kg/m
Key demographic variables collected were age, biological sex, and ethnicity. The age (years) was determined at the interview. Biological sex was described as either male or female. Ethnicity was categorized by the NHANES as Non-Hispanic White, Mexican American, Other Hispanics, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Asian, or Other Races (including multiracial).
Anthropometric variables [weight (WT, kg), height (HT, m), BMI (kg/m
Fasting plasma glucose (FPG, mg/dL), insulin (FPI, μU/mL), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, %), total cholesterol (TC, mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL, mg/dL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL, mg/dL), triglycerides (TG, mg/dL), aspartate aminotransferase (AST, U/L), alanine aminotransferase (ALT, U/L), platelets (10
Body fat composition was collected at a NHANES mobile examination center during the medical examination. Total abdominal fat area (TAFA, cm
Liver steatosis was assessed using USG CAP, a noninvasive method for detecting hepatic steatosis based on transient elastography, as indicated by Sasso et al. [[
The Harmonizing definition was used to classify subjects as normal [MetS(-)] or having MetS [MetS(+)]. The Harmonizing Definition [[
All analyses were carried out with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software v26.0 (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) using either sample weights or the complex samples study design option. The mean or percentage with standard errors were calculated for the quantitative variables and categorical variables, respectively. Normality of continuous variables was determined using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The differences between the groups were determined by the Rao Scott-Chi
The NHANES does not collect a complete set of data for each participant; therefore, certain variables may have missing data. The analyses were carried out in 2 stages: 1) the complete cohort to determine the effect VAT and SAT have on hepatic steatosis and NAFLD and 2) a MetS sub-analysis. For the complete cohort, patients were included if data was present for USG CAP, TAFA, VAT, and SAT. Other variables were shown only if <5% of the data was missing. When selecting variables to be adjusted, if the sample size decreased by >5% as well as the portions between the independent and dependent variable changed by >1%, then the variable would not be included. To be included for the MetS sub-analysis, the participant had to have no missing data for USG CAP, TAFA, VAT, and SAT as well as WC, SBP, DBP, HDL, TG, and FPG.
To adjust any associations between the independent variables and USG CAP/NAFLD, univariate logistic regression was conducted using baseline characteristics variables to identify potential confounder variables for NAFLD. Afterward, a multivariable logistic regression model was first built by including all statistically significant variables from the univariate analysis. Then, non-significant variables were sequentially removed. Key variables (biological sex, age, and ethnicity) remained in the final model, independent of whether the p-value was significant, as these variables are known to affect the risk and prevalence of both MetS and NAFLD.
From the NHANES 2017–2018 cycle, 9,254 participants were available; however, 56.2% were excluded due to not having DEXA results available, and an additional 9.6% were removed due to an incomplete or partial USG CAP result. Of the 3,167 remaining participants, 37.5% were excluded due to age, BMI, significant alcohol consumption, liver disease, HIV, or Hepatitis. Ultimately, the cohort consisted of 1,980 participants (96,282,896 weighted). Of these participants, for the MetS sub-analysis, only 866 (44,399,696 weighted) had data for WC, SBP, DBP, TG, HDL, and FPG. Details of the selection process of the participants are shown in the S1 Fig.
The characteristics of the studied population are presented in Table 1. Concerning the total population, males and females were equally distributed (50.9% vs 49.1%, respectively). The prevailing ethnicity present in the cohort was Non-Hispanic Whites (55.7%), followed by Non-Hispanic Blacks (12.5%). When the cohort was stratified by NAFLD status, 36.0% were diagnosed with NAFLD. When the two groups were compared, there were more males in the NAFLD(+) group; moreover, the NAFLD(+) group was older and had, as expected, worse values in parameters associated with hyperglycemia (HbA1c), dyslipidemia (TC and HDL), liver function (ALT, platelets, and Ferritin), and obesity (WC, BMI, TAFA, VAT, and SAT). Interestingly when stratified by BMI class, a majority of the NAFLD(-) group was normal weight or overweight (79.2%), whereas a majority of the NAFLD(+) group was obese (69.1%). Similar results were observed with the MetS sub-set, especially with the distribution for ethnicity, biological sex, and BMI categories, as well as with laboratory results for glycemic parameters, lipid profile, and liver parameters. Here, 34.2% were diagnosed as NAFLD(+). Insulin resistance was higher in the NAFLD(+) group (73.7%); however, 33.0% of the NAFLD(-) group was determined to have insulin resistance. As expected, each component for MetS was significantly worse in the NAFLD(+) group than in the NAFLD(-) group. The VATob and SATob rates were 2.8 and 2.0 times higher in the NAFLD(+) group, respectively.
Graph
Table 1 Characteristics of the cohort.
Complete cohort MetS sub-analysis Categories NAFLD(-) NAFLD(+) p-value NAFLD(-) NAFLD(+) p-value N-unweighted 1255 725 566 300 N-weighted 61,649,532 34,633,364 29,172,074 15,227,622 Biological sex (male %) 46.5 ± 2.1 58.9 ± 2.5 0.001* 49.7 ± 2.5 59.8 ± 3.1 0.005* Ethnicity (%) 0.004* 0.004* Mexican-American 8.4 ± 1.7 14.9 ± 3.5 8.1 ± 1.8 16.0 ± 4.8 Other Hispanic 9.3 ± 1.4 7.8 ± 1.4 9.0 ± 1.8 6.3 ± 1.8 Non-Hispanic White 55.9 ± 3.1 55.3 ± 3.9 56.6 ± 4.1 60.5 ± 3.8 Non-Hispanic Black 13.9 ± 2.0 9.9 ± 2.3 13.3 ± 2.6 8.1 ± 1.8 Non-Hispanic Asian 7.9 ± 1.4 7.1 ± 1.4 6.8 ± 1.4 5.9 ± 1.2 Other Race 4.7 ± 0.8 5.0 ± 1.1 6.1 ± 1.4 3.3 ± 1.0 Age (years) 36.0 ± 0.6 41.7 ± 0.5 <0.001* 35.7 ± 0.7 41.7 ± 0.6 <0.001* Weight (kg) 74.8 ± 0.8 96.2 ± 0.9 <0.001* 75.3 ± 1.4 95.5 ± 1.4 <0.001* Height (cm) 168.1 ± 0.3 169.3 ± 0.5 0.017* 168.7 ± 0.3 169.8 ± 0.5 0.097 BMI (kg/m2) 26.4 ± 0.3 33.5 ± 0.3 <0.001* 26.4 ± 0.5 33.1 ± 0.5 <0.001* Normal weight (%) 45.8 ± 2.7 4.7 ± 1.2 <0.001* 49.2 ± 4.2 6.1 ± 2.2 <0.001* Overweight (%) 33.4 ± 2.5 26.1 ± 2.8 29.6 ± 3.2 24.4 ± 3.3 Obese I (%) 14.6 ± 2.0 33.9 ± 2.7 13.6 ± 2.9 36.5 ± 4.1 Obese II (%) 3.9 ± 0.7 21.1 ± 1.6 4.3 ± 0.9 21.5 ± 3.9 Obese III (%) 2.3 ± 0.6 14.1 ± 1.8 3.3 ± 1.3 11.5 ± 1.8 WC (cm) 90.4 ± 0.7 109.3 ± 0.8 <0.001* 90.6 ± 1.2 109.0 ± 1.2 <0.001* SBP (mmHg) VNS VNS 116.0 ± 1.0 123.8 ± 0.9 <0.001* DBP (mmHg) VNS VNS 71.3 ± 1.0 76.0 ± 0.8 0.001* FPG (mg/dL) VNS VNS 100.3 ± 0.6 116.9 ± 3.2 <0.001* HbA1c (%) 5.3 ± 0.1 5.8 ± 0.1 <0.001* 5.3 ± 0.1 5.8 ± 0.1 <0.001* FPI (μU/dL) VNS VNS 9.5 ± 0.5 18.9 ± 1.4 <0.001* HOMA1-IR VNS VNS 2.4 ± 0.2 5.9 ± 0.6 <0.001* IR(+) (%) VNS VNS 33.0 ± 3.4 73.7 ± 4.2 <0.001* TC (mg/dL) 183.8 ± 2.1 193.7 ± 2.4 <0.001* 181.6 ± 2.8 191.0 ± 4.5 0.120 HDL (mg/dL) 55.7 ± 0.6 46.0 ± 0.5 <0.001* 55.4 ± 0.8 46.7 ± 0.8 <0.001* LDL (mg/dL) VNS VNS 108.9 ± 2.2 116.0 ± 3.1 0.118 TG (mg/dL) VNS VNS 86.2 ± 2.5 145.2 ± 10.3 <0.001 AST (U/L) VNS VNS 20.5 ± 0.6 22.8 ± 0.8 0.043* ALT (U/L) 19.7 ± 0.3 29.0 ± 0.7 <0.001* 19.5 ± 0.5 29.1 ± 1.1 <0.001* Platelets (103 cells/μL) 244.9 ± 2.7 252.9 ± 3.4 0.037* 238.1 ± 3.7 247.0 ± 3.7 0.059 Ferritin (ng/mL) 113.5 ± 7.2 172.6 ± 9.7 <0.001* 114.2 ± 8.6 171.5 ± 12.1 0.002* USG CAP 217.5 ± 1.3 322.3 ± 2.0 <0.001* 218.0 ± 1.6 320.2 ± 2.9 <0.001* Android fat mass (g) 1886 ± 60 3366 ± 67 <0.001* 1915 ± 106 3318 ± 115 <0.001* Gynoid fat mass (g) 4230 ± 91 5481 ± 113 <0.001* 4257 ± 155 5407 ± 117 <0.001* TAFA (cm2) 360.0 ± 10.7 573.2 ± 10.7 <0.001* 360.0 ± 18.5 566.9 ± 15.5 <0.001 TAFAob (%) 95.4 ± 0.7 93.0 ± 1.0 92.2 ± 1.8 99.7 ± 0.3 <0.001* SAT (cm2) 284.4 ± 8.5 434.2 ± 10.2 <0.001* 282.4 ± 15.4 429.3 ± 13.3 <0.001* SATob (%) 37.7 ± 2.7 74.2 ± 2.5 37.0 ± 5.1 74.9 ± 3.5 <0.001* VAT (cm2) 75.6 ± 2.6 139.0 ± 2.1 <0.001* 77.6 ± 3.7 137.6 ± 4.3 <0.001* VATob (%) 24.1 ± 2.5 74.4 ± 2.2 27.0 ± 3.4 75.0 ± 3.7 Prevalence (%) - - 14.7 ± 2.1 51.1 ± 4.2 <0.001* Central Obesity (%) - - 37.9 ± 3.3 86.8 ± 2.8 <0.001* Hypertension (%) - - 20.0 ± 3.1 37.9 ± 2.8 0.003* Hypertriglyceridemia (%) - - 12.2 ± 1.5 35.1 ± 5.4 <0.001* Low HDL (%) - - 11.9 ± 2.2 26.4 ± 4.3 0.011* Hyperglyceridemia (%) - - 38.7 ± 2.9 71.8 ± 3.3 <0.001*
1 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; BMI: Body-mass index; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; FPI: fasting insulin; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; HOMA1-IR: Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance; IR(+): subjects with insulin resistance; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; NAFLD(-): subjects without Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; NAFLD(+): subjects with Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; SAT: subcutaneous adipose tissue; SATob: subcutaneous obesity; SBP: systolic blood pressure; TAFA: total abdominal fat area; TAFAob: total abdominal obesity; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglycerides; WC: waist circumference; USG CAP: ultrasound with the Controlled Attenuation Parameter; VAT: visceral adipose tissue; VATob: visceral obesity; and VNS: Value not shown.
- 2
a Data is presented in mean or frequency ± standard error. - 3
b p-value corresponds to the difference between NAFLD(-) and NAFLD(+) determined by the Roa-Scott Chi2 test or the Complex Sample Design General Linear Model. * indicates statistically significant results (p<0.05, two-tailed) - 4
c Value was not reported due to >5% of participants missing the value.
TAFA, VAT, SAT, and BMI were plotted against USG CAP scores (Fig 1), and the association was evaluated. TAFA (r = 0.569, p<0.001), VAT (r = 0.645, p<0.001), SAT (r = 0.479, p<0.001), and BMI (r = 0.580, p<0.001) were strongly correlated with hepatic steatosis. However, when the type of adipose tissue was compared, VAT was more strongly correlated than TAFA, SAT, and BMI for USG CAP (p
Graph: Scattergrams were constructed in which A total abdominal fat area (TAFA), B visceral adipose tissue (VAT), C subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and D body-mass index (BMI) were compared to liver elastography controlled attenuation parameter (USG CAP) values. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the strength of the association. Lines correspond to the linear fit with 95% confidence intervals.
Graph
Table 2 Linear regression between USG CAP and type of abdominal fat depots and BMI.
Category Crude Model 1 Model 2 BMI 5.4 (4.7–6.1), p<0.001* 5.2 (4.6–5.8), p<0.001* 4.2 (3.4–5.1), p<0.001* TAFA 0.17 (0.15–0.19), p<0.001* 0.18 (0.17–0.20), p<0.001* 0.15 (0.13–0.17), p<0.001* VAT 0.71 (0.64–0.79), p<0.001* 0.71 (0.64–0.77), p<0.001* 0.56 (0.46–0.65), p<0.001* SAT 0.18 (0.15–0.20), p<0.001* 0.21 (0.19–0.23), p<0.001* 0.17 (0.15–0.20), p<0.001*
- 5 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; BMI, body mass index; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; SAT, subcutaneous adipose tissue; TAFA, total abdominal fat area; USG CAP: ultrasound with the Controlled Attenuation Parameter; and VAT, visceral adipose tissue.
- 6
a Values are the beta coefficients (95% confidence interval), and p-value. Values were calculated using the Complex Sample Design General Linear Model. * Indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed). - 7
b Model 1 = crude model adjusted for age and sex. - 8
c Model 2 = crude model adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, ALT, HbA1c, and HDL.
ROC analysis was used to compare the effectiveness of the type of abdominal fat and BMI for determining NAFLD (Fig 2). VAT had the higher AUC for NAFLD (AUC = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.81–0.85, p<0.001), followed by BMI (AUC = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.78–0.82, p<0.001), TAFA (AUC = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.76–0.80, p<0.001), and SAT (AUC = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.72–0.76, p<0.001). When each AUC was compared, VAT's AUC was superior (p
Graph: Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for the TAFA (black line), VAT (red line), SAT (blue line), and BMI (green line) to determine NALFD. The reference line (diagonal line) corresponds to no predictability (AUC = 0.50).
Univariate logistic regression was performed for all baseline variables to identify potential confounding variables for NAFLD (Table 3). Age, biological sex, ethnicity, BMI, HbA1c, TC, HDL, ALT, platelets, and ferritin were initially identified as potential confounders. Using multivariate logistic regression, age, ethnicity, BMI, HbA1c, HDL, and ALT were shown to retain their associations after including all variables. In the end, the "selected" variables included age, biological sex (due to the published studies indicating biological sex as a factor for NAFLD development), ethnicity (due to Mexican Americans consistently demonstrating an increased risk), HbA1c, HDL, and ALT. BMI was excluded from the "selected" model because it was controlled for by stratification.
Graph
Table 3 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for the presence of NAFLD.
Variables N-weighted Univariate Multivariate Selected Age (per 10 years) 96,282,896 (36.0%) 1.5 (1.4–1.6), <0.001* 1.4 (1.2–1.6), <0.001* 1.4 (1.3–1.6), <0.001* Biological sex Male 49,027,202 (41.6%) 1.0 Referent 1.0 Referent 1.0 Referent Female 47,255,692 (30.2%) 0.6 (0.5–0.8), 0.001* 0.9 (0.6–1.3), 0.510 1.2 (0.9–1.6), 0.265 Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 53,594,086 (35.7%) 1.0 Referent 1.0 Referent 1.0 Referent Mexican-American 10,363,545 (49.9%) 1.8 (1.3–2.5), 0.003* 1.8 (1.0–3.3), 0.042* 1.7 (1.0–2.9), 0.035* Other Hispanic 8,415,657 (32.0%) 0.8 (0.6–1.3), 0.401 0.9 (0.6–1.5), 0.782 0.8 (0.4–1.3), 0.293 Non-Hispanic Black 11,996,434 (28.5%) 0.7 (0.5–1.0), 0.048* 0.5 (0.3–0.9), 0.028* 0.7 (0.5–1.1), 0.132 Non-Hispanic Asian 7,313,128 (33.7%) 0.9 (0.6–1.4), 0.648 1.6 (1.1–2.3), 0.027* 0.8 (0.5–1.3), 0.303 Other Races 4,600,047 (37.6%) 1.1 (0.6–1.9), 0.762 0.7 (0.2–2.2), 0.548 0.9 (0.4–2.2), 0.829 BMI (per 5 kg/m2) 96,282,896 (36.0%) 2.9 (2.4–3.6), <0.001* 2.6 (2.0–3.3), <0.001* - HbA1c (per 0.5%) 92,676,057 (36.4%) 1.8 (1.4–2.3), <0.001* 1.3 (1.1–1.6), 0.005* 1.5 (1.2–1.8), <0.001* TC (per 10 mg/dL) 92,039,455 (36.6%) 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 0.006* 1.0 (1.0–1.1), 0.205 - HDL (per 10 mg/dL) 92,039,455 (36.6%) 0.5 (0.5–0.6), <0.001* 0.7 (0.6–0.8), <0.001* 0.6 (0.5–0.6), <0.001* ALT (per 10 mg/dL) 91,698,075 (36.6%) 1.6 (1.4–1.7), <0.001* 1.3 (1.1–1.4), <0.001* 1.4 (1.2–1.5), <0.001* Platelets (per 100 x 103 cells/mL) 93,126,337 (36.6%) 1.3 (1.0–1.5), 0.039* 1.0 (0.7–1.4), 0.984 - Ferritin (per 100 mg/dL) 92,247,021 (36.6%) 1.4 (1.1–1.7), 0.004* 1.1 (0.9–1.3), 0.603 -
- 9 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; BMI: Body-mass index; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; NAFLD: non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; and TC: total cholesterol.
- 10
a Total weighted number of participants (percent positive for NAFLD). - 11
b Values are the odds ratio (95% confidence interval), and p-values. Values were calculated using Complex Sample Design Logistic Regression. * Indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed).
For the type of abdominal fat, TAFAob, VATob, and SATob were associated with NAFLD development (Table 4). Interestingly, only for VATob, when stratified by BMI classification, the group that presented with the highest OR was the normal-weight participants, followed by Obese Class II, Overweight, and Obese Class I. Interestingly, obese class III showed no significant association. When adjusted by age, biological sex, ethnicity, ALT, HbA1c, and HDL, and when BMI categorization was not considered, the association between TAFAob, VATob, and SATob and the development of NAFLD remained. However, the effect was lost when BMI class was considered for VATob. For SATob, the "selected" model showed an effect for the normal weight group.
Graph
Table 4 The risk associated with the type of abdominal fat depots for NAFLD, stratified by BMI.
Type of abdominal obesity Referent group Obese group Crude Model 1 Model 2 Overall 4,451,999 (2.9%) 91,830,897 (37.6%) 19.9 (5.1–77.8), <0.001* 17.9 (4.6–70.1) <0.001* 6.6 (1.3–33.5) 0.025* Normal weight 4,058,734 (2.7%) 25,788,528 (5.9%) 2.3 (0.4–14.4), 0.361 1.5 (0.2–9.3), 0.648 1.0 (0.1–10.2), 0.966 Overweight 393,265 (5.3%) 29,218,945 (30.8%) 8.0 (0.8–85.9), 0.081 9.1 (0.7–112.6) 0.082 2.5 (0.2–27.2) 0.423 Obese Class I 0 (0.0%) 20,776,652 (56.6%) NA NA NA Obese Class II 0 (0.0%) 9,745,396 (75.1%) NA NA NA Obese Class III 0 (0.0%) 6,301,378 (77.6%) NA NA NA Overall 55,645,495 (15.9%) 40,637,402 (63.4%) 9.1 (6.2–13.5), <0.001* 8.4 (5.5–13.0), <0.001* 4.4 (2.6–7.4), <0.001* Normal weight 27,997,587 (4.1%) 1,849,675 (26.1%) 8.2 (2.4–28.0), 0.002* 3.5 (0.9–13.0), 0.060 2.3 (0.6–9.5), 0.220 Overweight 17,722,419 (20.1%) 11,889,792 (45.9%) 3.4 (1.5–7.4)), 0.005* 2.5 (1.0–6.2), 0.058 1.3 (0.4–4.0), 0.663 Obese Class I 7,596,896 (38.5%) 13,179,756 (67.0%) 3.3 (1.7–6.2), 0.001* 3.5 (1.6–7.7), 0.004* 2.2 (0.9–5.7), 0.087 Obese Class II 1,859,283 (48.0%) 7,886,112 (81.4%) 4.8 (2.1–10.8) 0.001* 3.1 (1.1–8.5), 0.029* 1.6 (0.6–4.8), 0.342 Obese Class III 469,311 (71.2%) 5,823,068 (78.2%) 1.4 (0.3–6.0), 0.558 1.0 (0.3–4.1), 0.972 0.4 (0.1–1.9), 0.206 Overall 47,387,494 (18.9%) 48,895,402 (52.5%) 4.8 (3.2–6.9), <0.001* 8.3 (5.3–12.9), <0.001* 6.3 (4.1–9.6), <0.001* Normal weight 26,894,996 (5.0%) 2,952,267 (10.4%) 2.2 (0.7–7.1), 0.157 3.8 (1.2–11.7), 0.025* 5.1 (1.8–14.9), 0.005* Overweight 16,131,093 (32.2%) 13,481,118 (28.5%) 0.8 (0.4–1.6), 0.582 1.6 (0.8–3.6) 0.195 1.6 (0.7–3.7) 0.277 Obese Class I 3,919,672 (50.8%) 16,856,980 (57.9%) 1.3 (0.6–3.0), 0.453 1.9 (0.7–4.8), 0.180 2.4 (0.9–6.0), 0.063 Obese Class II 441,735 (100%) 9,303,661 (73.9%) NA NA NA Obese Class III 0 (0.0%) 6,301,378 (77.6%) NA NA NA
- 12 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; BMI: Body-mass index; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; NA: not applicable; NAFLD: subjects without Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; SATob: subcutaneous obesity; TAFAob: total abdominal obesity; and VATob: visceral obesity.
- 13
a Total weighted number of participants of the referent group (percent positive for NAFLD). The referent group was low abdominal fat for TAFAob, visceral lean for VATob, and low subcutaneous fat for SATob. - 14
b Total weighted number of participants of the obese group (percent positive for NAFLD). The obese group was elevated fat for TAFAob, visceral obesity for VATob, and elevated subcutaneous fat for SATob. - 15
c Values are odds ratios (95% confidence interval), and p-value. Values were determined by comparing the obese group to the referent group for NAFLD using Complex Samples Design Logistic Regression. * Indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed). - 16
d Model 1 = crude model adjusted for age and sex - 17
e Model 2 = crude model adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, ALT, HbA1c, and HDL. - 18
f The ORs could not be calculated due to 0 or 100% values.
When the cohort was stratified by ethnicity and when the steatosis classification was considered, Mexican Americans presented with more S1-S3 subjects than any other ethnicity (Fig 3). Moreover, Mexican Americans presented with the highest rate of NAFLD(+) subjects (49.9%), greater than Other Hispanics (32.0%), Non-Hispanic Whites (35.7%), Non-Hispanic Blacks (28.5%), Non-Hispanic Asians (33.7%), and Other Races (37.6%). This correlated with an elevated risk of developing NAFLD for Mexican Americans compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (Table 3). Non-Hispanic Blacks, which had the lowest prevalence of NAFLD, had a decreased risk of developing NAFLD; however, when VATob was considered within each ethnicity, Non-Hispanic Blacks had an increased risk (Table 5). Moreover, Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest risk of developing NAFLD, followed by Non-Hispanic Asians. Interestingly, Mexican Americans presented with a lower risk than the other ethnic groups. When adjusted by the "selected" model, the association was lost for Mexican Americans; however, Non-Hispanic Whites and Non-Hispanic Blacks still had the highest risk for NAFLD. For SATob, each ethnicity presented with similar levels of risk for NAFLD; however, Other Hispanics, Non-Hispanic Blacks, and Non-Hispanic Whites presented with higher ORs than Non-Hispanic Asians and Mexican Americans. The observation remained even after adjusting for age, biological sex, ALT, HbA1c, and HDL.
Graph: Using the controlled attenuation parameter, steatosis was stratified as S0 (<248 dB/m, black), S1 (248–268 dB/m, light grey), S2 (268–280 dB/m, dark grey), and S3 (>280 dB/m, white).
Graph
Table 5 The risk associated with VATob and SATob for NAFLD, stratified by ethnicity.
Ethnicity Referent group Obese group Crude Model 1 Model 2 Non-Hispanic White 29,433,976 (12.5%) 24,161,010 (64.0%) 12.5 (5.9–26.2), <0.001 * 10.8 (5.0–23.5), <0.001 * 5.3 (2.2–12.6), 0.001 * Mexican-American 5,052,623 (30.2%) 5,310,922 (68.6%) 5.1 (2.0–12.9), 0.002 * 5.7 (1.6–20.1), 0.010 * 2.5 (0.6–10.4), 0.171 Other Hispanic 5,178,423 (16.8%) 3,237,235 (56.5%) 6.4 (2.8–14.9), <0.001 * 6.5 (2.9–14.6), <0.001 * 4.0 (1.5–10.7), 0.009 * Non-Hispanic Black 8,588,725 (14.6%) 3,407,710 (63.7%) 10.3 (6.2–17.2), <0.001 * 9.6 (5.5–16.9), <0.001 * 5.8 (2.8–11.9), <0.001 * Non-Hispanic Asian 4,829,909 (19.2%) 2,483,220 (62.1%) 6.9 (3.7–12.7), <0.001 * 6.0 (2.5–14.4), 0.001 * 3.1 (1.3–7.7), 0.018 * Other 2,562,741 (24.4%) 2,037,306 (54.2%) 3.7 (1.4–9.7), 0.012 * 3.0 (1.0–9.4), 0.057 1.3 (0.5–3.7), 0.600 Non-Hispanic White 25,973,600 (18.7%) 27,620,486 (51.8%) 4.7 (2.5–8.9), <0.001 * 9.1 (4.1–20.3), <0.001 * 6.6 (2.9–15.3), <0.001 * Mexican-American 4,061,433 (30.9%) 6,302,112 (62.1%) 3.6 (1.5–9.1), 0.008 * 6.7 (2.6–17.3), 0.001 * 4.2 (1.4–13.0), 0.017 * Other Hispanic 4,812,525 (15.4%) 3,603,133 (54.3%) 6.5 (3.9–11.1), <0.001 * 8.5 (4.8–14.8), <0.001 * 7.1 (3.5–14.5), <0.001 * Non-Hispanic Black 5,765,896 (12.4%) 6,230,539 (43.5%) 5.5 (2.9–10.1), <0.001 * 7.8 (4.4–14.1), <0.001 * 6.5 (2.6–16.5), 0.001 * Non-Hispanic Asian 4,876,331 (24.3%) 2,436,797 (52.6%) 3.5 (2.5–4.9), <0.001 * 6.1 (4.5–8.2), <0.001 * 4.1 (2.3–7.2), <0.001 * Other 1,897,710 (11.3%) 2,702,337 (56.1%) 10.1 (2.7–37.6), 0.002 * 14.5 (4.0–52.9), 0.001 * 15.1 (4.3–52.3), <0.001 *
- 19 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; BMI: Body-mass index; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; NA: not applicable; NAFLD: subjects without Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease; SATob: subcutaneous obesity; TAFAob: total abdominal obesity; and VATob: visceral obesity.
- 20
a Total weighted number of participants of the referent group (percent positive for NAFLD). The referent group was visceral lean for VATob and low subcutaneous fat for SATob. - 21
b Total weighted number of participants of the obese group (percent positive for NAFLD). The obese group was visceral obese for VATob and elevated subcutaneous fat for SATob. - 22
c Values are odds ratios (95% confidence interval), and p-value. Odds ratios were determined by comparing the obese group to the referent group for NAFLD using Complex Samples Design Logistic Regression. * indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed). - 23
d Model 1 = crude model adjusted for age and biological sex. - 24
e Model 2 = crude model adjusted for age, biological sex, ethnicity, ALT, HbA1c, and HDL.
Few studies have shown that MetS can augment NAFLD development; therefore, the effect of VATob and SATob was assessed. Using the MetS sub-set, Mets components were plotted against USG CAP scores (Fig 4). WC strongly correlated with liver steatosis (r = 0.635, p<0.001), while SBP (r = 0.323, p<0.001), DBP (r = 0.296, p<0.001), TG (r = 0.432, p<0.001), HDL (r = -0.364, p<0.001), and FPG (r = 0.312, p<0.001) were moderately correlated. There was a positive trend between the number of MetS components and USG CAP levels (p
Graph: Scattergrams were constructed in which A waist conference (WC), B systolic blood pressure (SBP), C diastolic blood pressure (DBP), D triglycerides (TG), E high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and F fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were compared to liver elastography controlled attenuation parameter (USG CAP) values. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the strength of the association. Lines correspond to the linear fit with 95% confidence intervals. G Using the Harmonizing Definition for MetS, the number of positive categories (0 to 5) was determined. Jockheere-Terpstra test indicated a trend between USG CAP and a number of MetS components (pJockheere-Terpstra <0.001). Data are shown as mean (dots) and 95% CI (bars).
Graph
Table 6 Linear regression between USG CAP and components of MetS.
Category Crude Model 1 Model 2 Components of MetS WC 2.3 (2.0–2.6), 0.001* 2.1 (1.9–2.4), 0.001* 1.9 (1.6–2.2), 0.001* SBP 1.3 (0.9–1.7), 0.001* 0.9 (0.5–1.3), 0.001* 0.7 (0.4–1.0), 0.001* DBP 1.5 (0.8–2.2), 0.001* 1.0 (0.4–1.6), 0.003* 0.7 (0.1–1.4), 0.023* HDL -1.5 (-1.8–-1.3), 0.001* -1.6 (-1.8 –-1.4), 0.001* -1.3 (-1.5 –-1.1), 0.001* TG 0.33 (0.28–0.38), 0.001* 0.28 (0.22–0.34), 0.001* 0.22 (0.15–0.29), 0.001* FPG 0.67 (0.38–0.96), 0.001* 0.51 (0.23–0.80), 0.002* 0.06 (-0.40–0.52), 0.793 Presence of MetS 60.4 (48.8–72.0), 0.001* 50.5 (37.1–63.8), 0.001* 36.6 (24.8–48.5), 0.001*
- 25 Abbreviations: ALT: alanine transaminase; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c: glycated hemoglobin; MetS Metabolic Syndrome; SBP: systolic blood pressure; TG: triglycerides; WC: waist circumference; and USG CAP: ultrasound with the Controlled Attenuation Parameter.
- 26
a Values are the beta coefficients (95% confidence interval), and p-value. Values were calculated using the Complex Sample Design General Linear Model. * indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed). - 27
b Model 1 = crude model adjusted for age and sex. - 28
c Model 2 = crude model adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, ALT, and HbA1c|.
Graph
Table 7 The effect MetS and either VATob or SATob have on the risk for NAFLD.
Group Total (cases) Crude Model 1 Model 2 MetS- / VATob- 22,373,865 (11.5%) 1.0 (Referent) 1.0 (Referent) 1.0 (Referent) MetS- / VATob+ 9,975,885 (48.9%) 7.3 (4.4–12.1), <0.001* 7.4 (4.3–12.6), <0.001* 6.6 (3.8–11.3), <0.001* MetS+ / VATob- 2,723,908 (44.9%) 6.3 (2.6–15.2), <0.001* 5.6 (2.3–13.5), 0.001* 5.6 (2.2–14.3), 0.002* MetS+ / VATob+ 9,326,039 (70.2%) 18.1 (8.0–41.3), <0.001* 16.9 (6.4–44.9), <0.001* 10.3 (4.0–27.0), <0.001* MetS- / SATob- 18,859,921 (10.5%) 1.0 (Referent) 1.0 (Referent) 1.0 (Referent) MetS- / SATob+ 13,489,829 (40.5%) 5.7 (3.3–10.3), <0.001* 8.4 (4.1–16.9), <0.001* 7.4 (3.4–15.9), <0.001* MetS+ / SATob- 3,356,503 (54.9%) 10.3 (4.8–22.4), <0.001* 5.9 (2.5–14.0), 0.001* 5.0 (2.0–12.8), 0.002* MetS+ / SATob+ 8,693,444 (68.2%) 18.3 (8.0–41.9), <0.001* 17.7 (7.3–42.9), <0.001* 11.2 (4.8–26.4), <0.001*
- 29 Abbreviations: MetS: Metabolic Syndrome; SATob: Subcutaneous fat obesity; and VATob: Visceral fat obesity.
- 30
a Total weighted number of participants for each group (percent positive for NAFLD). - 31
b Values are odds ratios (95% confidence interval), and p-value. Odds ratios were determined by comparing each group to the referent group for NAFLD using Complex Samples Design Logistic Regression. * Indicates a significant result (p<0.05, two-tailed). - 32
c Model 1 = crude model adjusted for age and sex - 33
d Model 2 = crude model adjusted for age, sex, race, alanine transaminase, and HbA1c.
Using the 2017–2018 NHANES dataset, the association between different types of abdominal fat depots and NAFLD was evaluated, in which TAFA, VAT, and SAT were positively correlated with the development of NAFLD. Even though VAT was more associated with USG CAP and a better predictor for NAFLD, TAFA showed a greater risk for NAFLD development. Concerning MetS, its components were identified as determinant factors that individually and collectively increased the risk of developing NAFLD; nevertheless, this association was affected by the accumulation of adipose tissue in different abdominal fat depots.
It is widely recognized that obesity is a major risk factor for the development of NAFLD [[
Different types of obesity are known to affect certain diseases differently, such as Type 2 Diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, dyslipidemias, etc [[
NAFLD in normal-weight individuals, also known as lean-NAFLD, presents in 7–20% of all NAFLD cases [[
Some studies that evaluate the association between SAT and NAFLD have posited that SAT is not relevant for NAFLD development and should not be considered as a risk factor [[
The prevalence of NAFLD has been increasing in the past decades; however, as stated by Bonacini et al. and as shown in this study, this increase has an ethnic disparity [[
Lastly, regarding the different metabolic phenotypes for the study population, MetS was evaluated as a sub-analysis. NAFLD is recognized as the hepatic manifestation of MetS [[
This study has a few limitations. First, this is a cross sectional study and causation cannot be concluded; therefore, the results should be assessed cautiously. Second, statistical adjustments were not made for insulin resistance or use of female hormones; however, alcohol consumption and other possible causes of liver disease were excluded. Third, this analysis was performed on participants older than 17 years and the conclusion should only be used for an adult cohort. Fourth, for NAFLD, as well as other complication, associations between independent variables and the outcome are affect by the inclusion of proper confounder. Here, may potential confounders were excluded due to missing data. Lastly, ultrasound is an operator dependent technique, and these results were not compared against the gold standard for NAFLD—liver biopsy. Shalimar et al. suggested using a BMI adjusted USG CAP thresholds for NAFLD diagnosis [[
In conclusion, TAFA, VAT, and SAT were positively associated with USG CAP values, supporting that abdominal fat contributes to the development of NAFLD. Additionally, ethnicity plays an important role in the risk and development of NAFLD, but this association is altered by VATob and SATob. Therefore, futures studies need to consider how type of abdominal fat depots and ethnicity promote NAFLD. Lastly, the type of abdominal fat depots did affect the association between MetS and NAFLD.
S1 Checklist
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.
(DOC)
S1 Fig
Flowchart for the selection of study participants.
(PDF)
S1 Table
Comparison of Pearson correlation coefficients for TAFA, VAT, SAT, and BMI with liver steatosis, as measured with hepatic ultrasound with the controlled attenuation parameter.
(PDF)
S2 Table
Predictability of type of abdominal fat depots and BMI for NAFLD as determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
(PDF)
Avila Matias A Academic Editor
10 Dec 2023
PONE-D-23-40506The effect of different types of abdominal fat on Non-alcoholic fatty liver diseasePLOS ONE
Dear Dr. López-Bayghen,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by the reviewer.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Matias A Avila, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne%5fformatting%5fsample%5fmain%5fbody.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see
"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study's minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see
Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data:
We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Partly
*****
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: No
*****
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The
Reviewer #1: No
*****
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
*****
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: The article titled "The Effect of Different Types of Abdominal Fat on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease" (PONE-D-23-40506) assesses the association between fat mass from various depots and NAFLD in the NHANES dataset. This article requires a comprehensive review: the analyses are moderately rigorous, and the reporting of results needs refinement. The discussion should encompass all previous literature with a similar approach and/or outcomes. Consequently, there are several aspects that need improvement.
Major concerns:
Minor Changes:
*****
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process#loc-peer-review-history). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose "no", your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our https://
Reviewer #1: Yes: Amaya Lopez-Pascual
*****
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
23 Jan 2024
Dear Editor,
We want to thank the Reviewers for this evaluation of our manuscript, "The effect of different types of abdominal fat on Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease" (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-40506). We have considered the comments and have taken the appropriate actions. For each of the comments, we have written a reply below.
figures
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne%5fformatting%5fsample%5fmain%5fbody.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
Response: We have followed the example files and made sure the naming of the documents is correct.
2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see
"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study's minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see
Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data:
We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.
Response: We have placed the data in the Harvard Dataverse repository. The DOI is: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UW4EER. This information was also added to the text.
Reviewer #1: The article titled "The Effect of Different Types of Abdominal Fat on Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease" (PONE-D-23-40506) assesses the association between fat mass from various depots and NAFLD in the NHANES dataset. This article requires a comprehensive review: the analyses are moderately rigorous, and the reporting of results needs refinement. The discussion should encompass all previous literature with a similar approach and/or outcomes. Consequently, there are several aspects that need improvement.
Major concerns:
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have added the indicated articles, as well as others we found, to the discussion.
2. The article's analyses are deemed moderately rigorous, suggesting a need for restructuring both the methodology and the presentation of results. To enhance clarity and precision, refer to the exemplary approach taken by Huang et al. (PMID: 35173677) in their article. Particularly, examine Table 3 in their publication, which serves as a clear illustration of how to effectively report odds ratio (OR) results. Adopting similar reporting practices will contribute to the overall methodological rigor and comprehensibility of the study.
Response: We have adopted some of the methodology presented in the Huang et al. study. We converted all tables to be similar to the tables present in their study as well as the Huh et al. study. We wish to point out that the Huang et al. study used SRS, whereas the NHANES dataset was from a complex samples design. Therefore, we could only use certain tests under certain assumptions.
Concerning reporting odds ratios, we have added some of the details demonstrated by Huang et al. study in Table 3 as well as the Huh et al. study; however, we choose not to show the referent group (the non-obese group) for each comparison as its own line, as it would make the table long and redundant. We have published tables like this before. Nevertheless, we have corrected Table 2's title to indicate the referent is the non-obese group.
3. Drawing inspiration from Huh et al. (PMID: 27923446), who explored the interplay of obesity and metabolic health on hepatic steatosis and fibrosis, especially as defined by CAP, can offer valuable insights. Refer to Table 3 in their study to understand how to present results of this nature. Additionally, consulting the approaches taken by Lin et al. (PMID: 31653028), Chon et al. (PMID: 27189281), Shalimar et al. (PMID: 32185692), and Shen et al. (PMID: 24782622) will provide guidance on explaining adjustment methodologies and variable selection in a manner that ensures transparency and replicability.
Response: With respect to adjusting associations (linear or logistic regression), there are two main ways, as pointed out by Magdalena Szumilas (PMID: 20842279) and Mohamad Amin Pourhoseingholi (PMID: 24834204): 1) (the more typical) adding the confounding variable as a term to the regression equation; and 2) stratification by the confounding variable. We agree that we should have at least adjusted by biological sex as well as age and now have provided this. However, we tried to control for central obesity by stratifying BMI into its categories. When deciding which variables should be adjusted, as stated by Bursac et al., "Some methodologists suggest including all clinical and other relevant variables in the model regardless of their significance to control for confounding. This approach, however, can lead to numerically unstable estimates and large standard errors" (PMID: 19087314). Thus, related variables can lead to a misinterpreted association that lose a significant result due to the high level of correlation between the variables, as well as any causal relationship between 2 variables should be taken into consideration, as the dependent variable should be included upon knowing how the causal effect can affect the association. Here, for other variables, their inclusion into the regression model was based on statistical significance and to minimize redundant effects, such as excluding waist circumference and other measures of central obesity due to the stratified analysis with BMI.
With respect to Huh et al., we have followed their methodology and have made the appropriate corrections to the methods as well as the results. Nonetheless, we wish to point out in their Table 3 that the order of the middle to categories (MUNO and MHO) could be switched and affect the trend test, as there is no agreement or evidence to undoubtably support MUNO is less healthy than MHO. It would have been better to assess if an additive biological interaction occurs. Huang et al. trend test was performed appropriately.
4. To strengthen the statistical robustness of the study, consider employing at least three models in the analyses. These models should include an unadjusted one, a second model incorporating simple covariates such as age and sex, and a third one incorporating all variables exhibiting statistically significant differences between groups. This multi-model approach is particularly vital in association studies utilizing logistic regression, as it evaluates relationships between predictor variables and binary outcomes. Inadequate adjustments may lead to weak conclusions, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and meticulous analytical strategy.
Response: We agree with the author and have provided the 3 models that were requested.
Just so the reviewer knows, the NHANES does not collect all data for each participant; therefore, some participants were missing data for non-key variables. This data was initially reported, but we should have indicated that many participants were missing this data. Here, if >5% of the cohort was missing data for each potential variable, then the variable was not reported and removed. For the main results, no data was missing for each variable (CAP and types of fats). However, when adjusting or selecting variables to be adjusted, we determined that if the sample size did not decrease by >5% as well as the portions between the independent and dependent variables remained constant (<1% change), then the variable could be included. These adjusted models were not performed/utilized if these assumptions were violated. This information was added to the Methods and Results sections. We provided a table examining the potential associations between certain confounding variables and NAFLD. Using the results from this table, we developed our selected adjusted model, similar to Lin et al. All tables that an association between the independent and dependent variables were assessed were also adjusted by the 2 models.
5. Expanding the scope of the discussion to encompass additional studies examining the association between visceral adipose tissue and NAFLD is essential. Numerous studies, both longitudinal and transversal, have explored this relationship (refer to the review by Seaw et al., https://doi.org/10.3390/livers3030033). The authors are encouraged to thoroughly review these articles, incorporate their findings into the discussion, and draw comparisons with their own results when appropriately executed. Notably, within the cited review by Seaw et al., there are at least five articles (Jeong et al., Lee & Kuk et al., Simon et al., Hu et al., and Chiyanika et al.) that did not stratify participants by gender, while four others (Damaso et al., Kim et al., Igarashi et al., and Lee et al.) did. Additionally, two studies (Kure et al. and Baek et al.) categorized participants by visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass, and Liu et al. (PMID: 36760579) explored the association between VAT and NAFLD in populations stratified by glucose tolerance. Despite the existence of similar data in the literature, this paper has the potential to contribute significantly by comparing results across diverse populations or highlighting variations in other terms. The review by Seaw et al. underscores the scarcity of studies conducted in non-Asian populations, emphasizing the need for a broader demographic representation.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have added the requested information to the discussion.
6. It is recommended that the authors undertake an analysis of the association between metabolic syndrome and its components with NAFLD within the present manuscript, providing additional information on this crucial aspect. Furthermore, considering an examination of fat mass in different depots, BMI, and metabolic syndrome with controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) levels would enhance the depth of the study. These additional analyses would contribute valuable insights into the multifaceted interplay between various factors and NAFLD, enriching the overall scientific contribution of the manuscript.
Response: As mentioned above, the NHANES does not collect all data for each participant. This does present a problem, in which ~50% of the sample is missing data for triglycerides and fasting plasma glucose. To resolve this issue, this analysis was performed as a sub-analysis for the components of Metabolic Syndrome. We indicate that the overall sample size has decreased in the results. Lastly, keeping with the original focus of the manuscript, we tested the effect VAT and SAT have on the association between MetS and NAFLD. We agree that this analysis is fascinating, and we are happy the reviewer suggested it. As pointed out in the discussion, a more comprehensive analysis needs to be designed, which we are planning. And as per Minor Changes #3, we hope to be able to include adolescents.
Minor Changes:
Response: We have corrected the title to have these components.
2. Ensure that statistics accompany the plots in Figure 1, enhancing the clarity and completeness of the visual representations.
Response: We have added a linear regression line with the 95% confidence interval as well as the Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value to all scatterplots.
3. Consider addressing the absence of a sub-analysis involving adolescents and/or children in the manuscript. This could potentially be one of the pioneering articles to explore such an analysis if conducted accurately. Providing insights into this demographic group could offer valuable contributions to the existing literature.
Response: We agree that this information would be interesting. Children are outside our typical study age, and due to the time limit for this analysis, we have decided not to include it here. Moreover, we wish to see what the reviewer thinks about the updated and additional analyses. Nevertheless, we are going to perform this analysis in a future study. This information was added as a limitation.
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Avila Matias A Academic Editor
30 Jan 2024
Visceral and subcutaneous abdominal fat is associated with Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease while augmenting Metabolic Syndrome's effect on Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: A cross-sectional study of NHANES 2017-2018
PONE-D-23-40506R1
Dear Dr. López-Bayghen,
We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.
Kind regards,
Matias A Avila, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
Avila Matias A Academic Editor
13 Feb 2024
PONE-D-23-40506R1
PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. López-Bayghen,
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.
At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:
* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited
* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,
* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset
If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.
Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr Matias A Avila
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Mtro. Alfredo Avendaño Arenaza, Director of the BUAP Central University Library, and Mtro. Ricardo Villegas Tovar, Coordinator of Scientific Production and International Visibility, at the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. The authors would also like to thank the participants and the NHANES staff for their valuable contributions. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data.
By Rebeca Garazi Elguezabal Rodelo; Leonardo M. Porchia; Enrique Torres‐Rasgado; Esther López-Bayghen and M. Elba Gonzalez-Mejia
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author