Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods of Estimation of Visceral Fat: Advantages of Ultrasonography

Open access
Ribeiro‐Filho, Fernando F., Faria, Alessandra N., Azjen, Sergio, Zanella, Maria‐Teresa, Ferreira, Sandra R.G.·2003·Obesity Research
DOI 10.1038/oby.2003.199
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To compare methods for the assessment of visceral fat with computed tomography (CT) and establish cutoffs to define visceral obesity based on such alternative methods. Research Methods and Procedures: One hundred women (50.4 ± 7.7 years; BMI 39.2 ± 5.4 kg/m 2) underwent anthropometric evaluation, bioelectrical impedance, DXA, abdominal ultrasonography (US), and CT scan. Results: Waist circumference, waist‐to‐hip ratio (WHR), and US‐determined visceral fat values showed the best correlation coefficients with visceral fat determined by CT (r = 0.55, 0.54, and 0.71, respectively; p < 0.01). Fat mass determined by DXA was inversely correlated with visceral‐to‐subcutaneous‐fat ratio (r = −0.47, p < 0.01). Bioimpedance‐determined fat mass and skinfolds were correlated with only subcutaneous abdominal fat quantified by CT. Linear regression indicated US visceral‐fat distance and WHR as the main predictors of CT‐determined visceral fat (adjusted r2 = 0.51, p < 0.01). A waist measurement of 107 cm (82.7% specificity, 60.6% sensitivity) and WHR of 0.97 (78.8% specificity, 63.8% sensitivity) were chosen as discriminator values corresponding with visceral obesity diagnosed by CT. A value of 6.90 cm for visceral fat US‐determined diagnosed visceral obesity with a specificity of 82.8%, a sensitivity of 69.2%, and a diagnostic concordance of 74% with CT. Discussion: US seemed to be the best alternative method for the assessment of intra‐abdominal fat in obese women. Its diagnostic value could be optimized by an anthropometric measurement. Prospective studies are needed to establish CT and US cutoffs for defining visceral‐fat levels related to elevated cardiovascular risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/oby.2003.199

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Ribeiro‐Filho, F. F., Faria, A. N., Azjen, S., Zanella, M., & Ferreira, S. R. G.
Venue
Obesity Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
1488-1494
ISSN
  • 1071-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-8528
DOI
10.1038/oby.2003.199
OpenAlex
W1963734433
Cited by
272
References
33
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.