Key result
Adding body fat and FINDRISK to BMI improves sensitivity, identifying high cardiometabolic risk in ~41%.
Why the study?
BMI cannot distinguish fat from lean mass, prompting evaluation of whether body fat percentage and the FINDRISK score improve cardiometabolic and type 2 diabetes risk detection.
Does body fat percentage combined with FINDRISK improve cardiometabolic risk detection compared to BMI alone in medical students?
Cross-Sectional (n=152)
No
Does body fat percentage combined with FINDRISK improve cardiometabolic risk detection compared to BMI alone in medical students?
Combining body fat percentage and FINDRISK score with BMI increases the sensitivity of cardiometabolic risk detection in young adults compared to BMI alone.
Introduction and Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk in young adults is influenced by body composition and lifestyle factors. Body mass index (BMI) is widely used method to detect overweight and obesity, but cannot distinguish fat from lean mass. Body fat percentage (BFP), estimated using standardized formulas, may offer greater diagnostic sensitivity. The incorporation of the FINDRISK score alongside anthropometric tools may optimize early cardiometabolic risk detection in resource-limited settings such as universities. To determine the diagnostic value of BFP vs. BMI for T2D risk estimation and evaluate the added utility of combining both with FINDRISK. Methods: Cross-sectional study in second-year medical students (UNC 2024-2025). BMI, BFP (CUN-BAE formula), and FINDRISK score were calculated. Participants were classified as low, intermediate, or high risk: BMI (<25, 25-29, ≥30 kg/m²), BFP (men: <20%, 20-25%, >25%; women: <29%, 29-35%, >35%), and FINDRISC (<7, 7-14, >14). Diagnostic discordance between methods and cases identified by a single parameter were assessed (p<0.05) Results: 152 students were evaluated (100 women, 47 men). By BMI: 30% intermediate risk, 7% high risk. By BFP: 29% intermediate risk, 22% high risk. By FINDRISK: 25% intermediate risk, 0% high risk. Overall, 41% (n=62) were classified as intermediate or high risk by at least one parameter. Significant diagnostic discordance was observed: several students with normal BMI had elevated BFP, especially women. Ten students (6.6%) were identified as intermediate risk exclusively by FINDRISC, with no BMI or BFP abnormalities. The combination of all three tools expanded cardiometabolic risk detection capacity. Conclusion: Combined use of BMI, CUN-BAE formula, and FINDRISK improved cardiometabolic risk detection, increasing sensitivity compared to BMI alone. BFP identified underdiagnosed cases. Incorporating all three methods into screening programs is recommended. Disclosure L. Mezzano: None. G. Reartes: None. V.V. Ojeda Heredia: Speaker's Bureau; Current; Novo Nordisk, Lilly Diabetes. Other - Research Protocol; Current; Roche Diabetes Care. V.A. Rodriguez: None. M.S. Marchesini: None. C.A. Dimuro: None. A. Dain: None. Funding SECyT-UNC RES N 258/23
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mezzano et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiometabolic risk (n=152). Body fat percentage (BFP) and FINDRISK score vs. Body mass index (BMI) was evaluated on Diagnostic discordance and identification of intermediate or high cardiometabolic risk. Combining body fat percentage, BMI, and the FINDRISK score identified intermediate or high cardiometabolic risk in 41% of medical students, improving sensitivity compared to BMI alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: