Cross-sectional analysis finds increased osteoporosis risk with higher cobalt exposure in U.S. adults, suggesting the need for revised safety standards.
Objective This study investigates the association between blood cobalt levels and osteoporosis prevalence in the general U.S. population, addressing critical gaps in understanding low-to-moderate environmental exposure effects. Methods We analyzed 2901 adults from NHANES 2017-2020. Blood cobalt concentrations were categorized into quartiles. Multivariable logistic regression, restricted cubic splines (RCS), and Boruta algorithm were employed to assess dose-response relationships, nonlinear associations, and demographic effect modifications, adjusting for sociodemographic, metabolic, and clinical covariates. Results Participants in the highest cobalt quartile showed 32% increased osteoporosis prevalence vs Q1 (OR = 1.32, 95% CI:1.06-1.86). RCS analysis revealed a nonlinear relationship with an inflection point at 0.12 μg/L. Significant effect modifications emerged across multiple strata: females exhibited 91% greater risk elevation than males (OR = 1.91 vs 1.24, p-interaction = 0.022), Non-Hispanic Black participants demonstrated 36-fold higher odds (OR = 36.54, 95% CI:7.17-186.28), and participants with 9-11 years education showed elevated risk (OR = 21.72, 95% CI:1.27-372.63, p-interaction = 0.009). Married individuals exhibited higher risk (OR = 2.08, 95% CI:1.14-3.82) compared to never-married counterparts, though marital status interaction was nonsignificant ( P = 0.721). Conclusions Environmental cobalt levels below current safety thresholds may associate with elevated osteoporosis prevalence, particularly in females and Non-Hispanic Black populations. The nonlinear dose-response relationship (inflection point 0.12 μg/L) suggests threshold effects, advocating for revised biomonitoring standards and targeted screening in vulnerable subgroups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: