Finds that urinary cadmium exposure increases metabolic syndrome risk in adults, indicating a significant health concern.
This study aims to examine the association between urinary cadmium (U-Cd) exposure and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in U.S. adults and evaluate whether thyroid function (TSH/T4) mediates this relationship. We analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2012 data (n = 4869; age ≥18) to assess the relationship between U-Cd and MetS. U-Cd was measured by ICP-MS, adjusted for creatinine, and log-transformed. We employed weighted logistic regression, restricted cubic splines for nonlinearity, and multivariable models for U-Cd–TSH/T4 relations, with causal mediation analysis for indirect effects, considering demographics and lifestyle factors. Higher U-Cd was associated with greater MetS risk in a dose–response fashion: versus Q1, OR (95% CI) for Q2, Q3, Q4 were 1.84 (1.49–2.26), 2.36 (1.92–2.89), and 2.49 (2.04–3.06); P -trend <.0001. Restricted cubic splines showed a significant overall and nonlinear association ( P _overall = .006; P _nonlinear = .036), with relatively flat risk at low exposure and steeper increases beyond a turning point. U-Cd correlated positively with T4 (fully adjusted β ≈ 0.26 ng/dL per unit increase; P <.001) and inversely with TSH. Mediation indicated a small but significant indirect effect via T4 (indirect effect ≈ 0.003; 95% CI, 0.001–0.005; proportion mediated ≈ 8.3%), while TSH and TSH/T4 showed negligible or negative indirect effects; the direct path from U-Cd to MetS predominated. Findings were generally stronger in women, younger adults (<40 years), and those with higher physical activity, and were robust across chronic-disease strata. In a nationally representative sample, U-Cd exposure is positively – and nonlinearly – associated with MetS; this relationship is driven mainly by a direct effect with a modest mediating role of T4, underscoring the metabolic implications of environmental cadmium and the relevance of thyroid pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: