Behind BMI: The Potential Indicative Role of Abdominal Ectopic Fat on Glucose Metabolism

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1.. a Example image: full coverage of the ROI at all levels of the liver (green area), assessing the overall liver fat content to avoid ROI sampling errors. b Similar to the liver, the ROI covered the entire pancreas as finely as possible. c The colored part indicates the measurement range of visceral fat, and “the visceral fat area/the body cross-sectional area of the layer ×100%” represents the visceral fat fraction, which can eliminate the influence caused by different body sizes. d The sky blue area indicates the measurement range of subcutaneous fat.

• 

  Fig. 2.. Linear trend plots of fat deposition at different sites with increasing BMI. The response of visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, and pancreatic fat to BMI was more obvious.

• 

  Fig. 3.. Visualized bar graphs of fat fraction in different groups. *Represents significant differences at the 0.05 level. **Represents significant difference at the 0.01 level, and ns represents no significant difference. There were significant differences in SAT and PFF in the normal weight group and in PFF in the overweight group.

• 

  Fig. 4.. Linear fitting of pancreatic fat and glucose metabolism indicators showed that FINS eventually showed a downward trend as pancreatic fat increased.

• 

  Fig. 5.. ROC curves of BMI, HFF, PFF, VAT, and SAT for predicting abnormal glucose metabolism in different groups. a In all subjects, the AUC for BMI was 0.512 (95% CI, 0.409–0.615), HFF was 0.542 (95% CI, 0.438–0.643), PFF was 0.750 (95% CI, 0.650–0.830), VAT was 0.578 (95% CI, 0.474–0.678), and SAT was 0.571 (95% CI, 0.467–0.671). b In normal weight group, the AUC for BMI was 0.516 (95% CI, 0.259–0.766), HFF was 0.594 (95% CI, 0.326–0.826), PFF was 0.859 (95% CI, 0.598–0.979), VAT was 0.641 (95% CI, 0.369–0.859), and SAT was 0.781 (95% CI, 0.509–0.944). c In overweight group, the AUC for BMI was 0.525 (95% CI, 0.378–0.670), HFF was 0.540 (95% CI, 0.392–0.684), PFF was 0.864 (95% CI, 0.736–0.945), VAT was 0.561 (95% CI, 0.412–0.703) and SAT was 0.625 (95% CI, 0.475–0.759). d In obesity group, the AUC for BMI was 0.659 (95% CI, 0.474–0.814), HFF was 0.504 (95% CI, 0.325–0.682), PFF was 0.541 (95% CI, 0.359–0.715), VAT was 0.648 (95% CI, 0.463–0.806), and SAT was 0.585 (95% CI, 0.401–0.753). CI, confidence interval.