Key result
Higher METS-VF linked to ~35% higher stroke prevalence per SD.
Why the study?
Is higher METS-VF associated with an increased prevalence and risk of stroke?
Cross-Sectional (n=19,290)
Yes
Is higher METS-VF associated with an increased prevalence and risk of stroke?
Odds Ratio: 1.346 (95% CI 1.093–1.658)
p-value: p=0.005
METS-VF provides reproducible stroke-related associations across diverse populations, serving as a computable adiposity phenotype, but its clinical utility requires prospective validation.
We evaluated the metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) as a candidate computable metabolic–visceral adiposity phenotype associated with self-reported stroke across population-based datasets. Cross-sectional analyses included NHANES 2005–2010, NHANES 2011–2016, and CHARLS; a secondary longitudinal analysis used ELSA. In DAG-adjusted models, each 1-SD increase in METS-VF was associated with higher self-reported stroke prevalence across the three cross-sectional cohorts (ORs, 1.338–1.373). In ELSA, baseline METS-VF was associated with first newly reported physician-diagnosed stroke during follow-up (discrete-time OR, 1.306; 95% CI, 1.030–1.656). Head-to-head comparisons with simple and TyG-derived indices showed modest, dataset-dependent incremental information rather than consistent superiority. External machine-learning transfer from NHANES to CHARLS was limited. METS-VF therefore represents a candidate computable phenotype with reproducible stroke-related associations, but its clinical utility and prospective predictive value require adjudicated longitudinal validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xia et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in General population (n=19,290). Metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) was evaluated on Self-reported stroke prevalence (OR 1.346, 95% CI 1.093-1.658, p=0.005). Each 1-SD increase in METS-VF was associated with higher self-reported stroke prevalence across three cross-sectional cohorts, with ORs ranging from 1.338 to 1.373.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: