Waist Size Proves Key to Assessing Liver Health
Waist circumference is the strongest predictor of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and its progression to steatohepatitis and liver stiffness in both the general adult population and in those with diabetes or multiple metabolic comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY:
MASLD affects 1 in 3 individuals and is linked to rising abdominal obesity and visceral fat deposition. Although BMI estimates fat mass, it does not reflect fat distribution as well as parameters like waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio, and waist-to-hip ratio.
Researchers analyzed 2017-2023 survey data from adults with available liver health and relevant anthropometric measurements to study the association between body composition parameters and the risk for MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), and liver stiffness.
Body composition parameters evaluated included height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, body adiposity index, BMI, body roundness index, fat mass, waist-to-hip ratio, waist-to-height ratio, waist-adjusted BMI, and weight-adjusted waist index.
MASLD was defined by a controlled attenuation parameter ≥ 275 dB/m with metabolic dysfunction, MASH by a FibroScan (Echosens ) aspartate aminotransferase score ≥ 0.35, and increased liver stiffness by a stiffness measurement ≥ 8 kPa.
TAKEAWAY:
Among 11,579 participants (median age, 51 years; 47% men), MASLD was present in 40.9%, MASH in 6.5%, and increased liver stiffness in 9.9%.
Waist circumference, and not BMI or waist-to-height ratio, achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC, 0.82) for MASLD, followed by increased liver stiffness (AUC, 0.75) and MASH (AUC, 0.73), consistently outperforming other indices. Similar observations were found in patients with diabetes and multiple metabolic comorbidities.
In sex‐stratified analyses, waist circumference-based markers, such as body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, were the strongest predictors in both men and women, followed by waist circumference alone.
The association between waist circumference and MASLD risk was nonlinear, with the risk plateauing slightly above 100 cm. MASH risk rose linearly across all waist circumferences, whereas elevated liver stiffness risk increased sharply only above 100 cm.
IN PRACTICE:
"Waist circumference, particularly in the absence of overt obesity, should be considered as the preferred body composition parameter in individuals at risk of MASLD, MASH or fibrosis," the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Laurens A. van Kleef, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented analysis of changes in body composition and liver outcomes over time. Data on steatohepatitis were unavailable for a portion of the study timeframe. Liver stiffness measurements may be unreliable in individuals with elevated alanine aminotransferase levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The Foundation for Liver and Gastrointestinal Research in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, provided financial support for this study. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, grants, speaker fees, personal royalties; served as consultants; and had other ties with various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Profits over people and microplastics in every meal?
For decades, the plastic crisis has always felt far away, whether through time or across distance. But unfortunately, we're no longer talking about environmental pollution 'out there' in the ocean. Microplastics, tiny fragments that come from the breakdown of everyday plastic items, are now inside all of us, turning this from a theoretical risk into a shocking—and deeply personal (physically) —reality. Despite this fact, most Americans remain unaware of just how prevalent microplastics are in our lives. New national research that we conducted with our partners at The 5 Gyres Institute paints a troubling picture: while 77% of Americans say they've heard the term 'microplastics,' only 49% actually understand what it means. Even about half of people—51%—know it's often a result of larger plastic breaking down. The knowledge gap That knowledge gap is more than an academic concern. It's a public health crisis, especially when you consider that, after the term is defined for survey respondents, 90% of Americans state that they're worried about microplastics in the human body—and they're right to be. Science confirms that these particles have been found in breast milk, placental tissue, lungs, brains, blood, and more. And studies are increasingly linking microplastics to serious health impacts, including cancer, heart disease, hormone disruption, and infertility. But even when you close that knowledge gap, people who care often feel stuck. Our research shows that 70% of Americans don't know how to reduce their exposure to microplastics and 67% can't name a single company actively working on the problem (we're hoping to change that!). That sense of powerlessness is as dangerous as the plastic itself, because people want better. They just don't know where to turn. At Grove, we've seen firsthand that Americans are searching for answers and they're looking to us: to companies, brands, and private-sector leaders. They want healthier homes, safer products, and more sustainable choices. They want corporations to lead—not with vague promises, but with bold, measurable action. This is our collective moment. A solution Consumers didn't create the plastic crisis. We, the private sector, did. For decades, our industries have driven plastic adoption in product design, packaging, and sourcing. And we were lied to and manipulated by the petrochemical and plastics industry that shaped this system. Now, we, the private sector in 2025, must dismantle it. That means going beyond plastic. It means rejecting outdated systems that rely on single-use packaging, microbeads, and petrochemical-based materials. It means investing in compostable and refillable formats, shifting supply chains, being transparent about ingredients and sourcing, and leaning into the circular economy. It means learning and being aware of the impact plastics are having in our bodies and environments. It means supporting legislation, like the newly introduced bipartisan Microplastics Safety Act, which calls on the FDA and HHS to investigate and report on the health impacts of microplastics. Most importantly, it means refusing to offload responsibility onto consumers and admitting that recycling, long touted as a solution, simply isn't enough. Only 5% of plastic is recycled and the rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or breaks down into microplastic particles that pollute our air, food, water, and (if not abundantly clear by now) our bodies. At Grove, we remain unwavering in our commitment to eliminate plastic from the products we make and sell—and to empower others to do the same. But we can't do it alone. The cost of inaction Consumers are demanding accountability. Our research shows that 79% of Americans believe microplastics represent a human and environmental emergency; 82% believe companies should be doing more. But only half (54%) believe that businesses are actually stepping up. That gap is where trust and long-term relevance will be won or lost. The cost of inaction is rising. Not just in terms of public health, but in trust, consumer confidence, and regulatory risk. There will come a time soon when inaction on microplastics will be seen for what it is: negligent at best, and reckless at worst. Companies that continue to delay action on plastic pollution aren't just making a business decision. They're making a decision that directly impacts human health. Brands that cling to plastic-heavy models are effectively choosing profits over people, and they'll have to live with the consequences. But brands that choose to lead? They'll be rewarded with consumer loyalty, resilience, and relevance in a world that's rapidly waking up to this crisis. The science is clear. The public is paying attention. The future will not be plastic. And the time for action is now.
Washington Post
5 hours ago
- Washington Post
This new study shows how to keep your brain sharp and reduce dementia risk
You're reading The Checkup With Dr. Wen, a newsletter on how to navigate medical and public health challenges. Click here to get the full newsletter in your inbox, including answers to reader questions and a summary of new scientific research. In June, I wrote about eight evidence-based strategies for reducing dementia risk. Here's an important update: A major new study has found that lifestyle changes can improve brain function in older adults.
Gizmodo
6 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Very Important Study Calculates Your Chance of Being Killed by an Asteroid vs Several Other Scary Things
In what first appears like a rather morbid game of 'which would you rather?', researchers have released a new study that games out how likely the average person is to die should one of various mishaps like car crashes, carbon monoxide poisoning, and lightning strikes, occur—or because a giant asteroid destroys the Earth. The probability of a planet-annihilating asteroid crashing into Earth is low, but it's not zero. In fact, Earth had a recent close call when a newly discovered asteroid was calculated to have a 1-in-63 chance of impacting our planet in 2032. Thankfully, scientists later revised the chances of that happening to nearly zero, but nonetheless, asteroid 2024 YR4 reminded us how vulnerable we really are. In the new study, researchers set out to calculate just how likely it is that an asteroid could hit Earth during the average human lifetime, and the chances that the impact would kill us, and then compared that to the odds of other potentially fatal things happening to people during their lifetime, and how likely they are to meet their end. In a surprising finding, the researchers found that if an asteroid impact occurs, it is more likely to kill you than if you contracted rabies, according to the study, which was published on the preprint website arXiv. They also found that the chance of an asteroid hitting the Earth is more likely than the chance of a person being struck by lightning, but if you are struck by lightning, it is far more likely to be fatal. Calculating the odds of an asteroid impact is tricky. In order to come up with an estimate, the researchers analyzed data on the population of Near-Earth objects, as well as previous risk assessments of potentially hazardous asteroids and other space rocks that are more than 460 feet (140 meters) wide. They then calculated the frequency of impacts by these objects, and compared that to data about other grisly ways to die and the chances of these happening to an average human during their lifetime. Of course, no human has ever died from an asteroid impact hitting Earth, whereas 13 people died from lightning in 2024 in the U.S. alone. But still, the study 'places an event that would affect the planet (NEO impact) in context with potentially deadly events that can befall individuals,' the researchers wrote. 'This serves the purpose of allowing experts and non-experts to place the probability of an NEO impact within a mental framework of events they may have some familiarity with, such as car crashes and animal attack.' NASA is already planning for such an apocalyptic eventually: In 2022, the agency smacked a spacecraft into an asteroid in a test designed to see if we could deflect any hazardous space rocks heading our way. Known as the DART mission, it was a success, and a follow-up satellite is currently on its way to rendezvous with the same asteroid in order to study the impact up-close.
