BACKGROUND: Adolescent myopia has risen sharply, yet the role of metabolic dysregulation remains unclear. This cross-sectional study investigated the association between the Metabolic Score for Insulin Resistance (METS-IR) and myopia in adolescents, and tested whether the interaction with obesity reflects biological synergy. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 3946 adolescents aged 12-19 years from NHANES with complementary analysis in an independent clinical cohort of 561 East Chinese adolescents. Myopia was defined as spherical equivalent ≤ -0.5 diopters. Multivariable logistic regression, subgroup analyses, restricted cubic spline analyses, and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the association, identify effect modifiers, characterize dose-response relationships, and evaluate the interaction. RESULTS: In NHANES, myopic adolescents had significantly higher METS-IR levels than non-myopes (32.1 vs. 31.3, P = 0.024). After full adjustment, high METS-IR (>31.84) was associated with 17% greater odds of myopia (OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.03-1.34), with a linear dose-response relationship and a myopia-specific exploratory reference point of 31.67. The association was significantly stronger in adolescents with obesity (P for interaction = 0.039). Sensitivity analyses using individual METS-IR components and the BMI-independent triglyceride-glucose index confirmed that the amplification of risk by obesity represents a statistical interaction consistent with biological synergy. In the independent cohort, the association remained significant after adjusting for parental myopia (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.26). CONCLUSION: Higher METS-IR is independently associated with increased myopia risk in adolescents, particularly in those with obesity, and highlights METS-IR as a practical metabolic marker for risk stratification that may help guide nutritional and lifestyle interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: