Executive Summary

The term metabolic syndrome refers to a cluster of cardiometabolic abnormalities: central adiposity, elevated blood pressure, impaired fasting glucose, raised triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. When these occur together, they carry a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and death from all causes than any single component carries alone. In the United States, roughly one adult in three meets current criteria for the syndrome.[1]

The concept is useful, but it is also complicated. At least five major definitions have been issued since 1998, and they differ on which component is mandatory, where thresholds fall, and how ethnic differences should be handled. The syndrome also reaches well beyond its five diagnostic markers. It is linked to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), chronic kidney disease, polycystic ovary syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, hyperuricemia and gout, several cancers, and cognitive decline. Across this range, insulin resistance, dysfunctional visceral and ectopic fat, and chronic low-grade inflammation recur as common mechanisms.

This paper reviews the competing definitions, the diseases and organs involved, the inflammatory and non-inflammatory processes that connect them, and what this complexity means for clinical practice and research.

---

1. Introduction: A Syndrome Defined by Clustering

In 1988, Gerald Reaven described what he called “Syndrome X.” He observed that resistance to insulin-stimulated glucose uptake tended to occur alongside hyperinsulinemia, glucose intolerance, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL cholesterol, and hypertension, and that this group of findings predicted coronary disease.[2] Earlier clinicians had made similar observations, but Reaven’s framing gave the cluster a single proposed driver: insulin resistance.

Since then, the concept has gone by many names, including the insulin resistance syndrome, the deadly quartet, and the dysmetabolic syndrome. It has also been the subject of sustained debate. The central question is whether metabolic syndrome is a distinct disease with a shared underlying cause, or a practical grouping of risk factors that tend to appear together because they share common upstream influences such as excess visceral fat, physical inactivity, and poor diet.[3] Most of the complexity described in this paper follows from that unresolved question.

---

2. Competing Definitions

The table below summarizes the principal definitions. They differ in three main ways:

• whether one component is required (insulin resistance for WHO, central obesity for IDF);
• the glucose threshold used;
• how waist circumference is measured and set across populations.

Definition	Required component	Additional criteria	Key thresholds
WHO (1998)	Insulin resistance (IGT, IFG, type 2 diabetes, or reduced insulin sensitivity)	≥2 of: BP, dyslipidemia, obesity, microalbuminuria	BP ≥140/90 mmHg; waist-to-hip ratio >0.90 (men), >0.85 (women), or BMI >30
NCEP ATP III (2001; revised 2005)	None	≥3 of 5	Waist >102 cm (men), >88 cm (women); fasting glucose ≥110 mg/dL, lowered to ≥100 in 2005
IDF (2005)	Central obesity (ethnicity-specific waist)	≥2 of 4	Waist ≥94 cm (European men), ≥80 cm (European women); lower cut-points for South Asian, Chinese, and Japanese populations
AHA/NHLBI (2005)	None	≥3 of 5	Largely follows revised ATP III
Harmonized “Joint Interim Statement” (2009)	None	≥3 of 5	Triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL; HDL <40 (men), <50 (women); BP ≥130/85; fasting glucose ≥100; waist by population- and country-specific cut-points

Sources: Alberti et al. (2005, 2009); Expert Panel (2001); Grundy et al. (2005).

The 2009 harmonized definition was meant to resolve these disagreements, and it has become the most widely used standard. Even so, it leaves waist thresholds to national and regional bodies, so prevalence figures from different studies are still not fully comparable.[4] Because the definition requires any three of five criteria, two patients can share the diagnosis while having only one abnormality in common. This variation in presentation is one of the main reasons the syndrome is scientifically contested.

---

3. Component Conditions and Associated Diseases

3.1 The Five Core Components

Each diagnostic criterion is a clinical condition in its own right:

1. Central (visceral) adiposity. Waist circumference serves as a proxy for visceral fat, which is more metabolically active and more harmful than subcutaneous fat.
2. Atherogenic dyslipidemia. This pattern combines high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, and a shift toward small, dense LDL particles. A standard LDL measurement does not capture it well.
3. Elevated blood pressure. This ranges from high-normal readings to established hypertension.
4. Dysglycemia. This ranges from impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance to overt type 2 diabetes.
5. Insulin resistance. It is rarely measured directly in practice, but it is the physiological thread proposed to connect the other four.

3.2 Principal Downstream Diseases

The two outcomes most consistently tied to metabolic syndrome are type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. A large meta-analysis found that metabolic syndrome roughly doubled the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death and increased all-cause mortality by about 50 percent.[5] Diabetes risk rises even more sharply, largely because dysglycemia is already one of the defining criteria.

3.3 Associated Conditions Outside the Formal Criteria

Several disorders are so closely linked to the syndrome that some researchers treat them as expressions of it:

• Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). Formerly called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), it was renamed in 2023. The new definition requires hepatic steatosis plus at least one cardiometabolic risk factor, which explicitly ties the liver disease to the syndrome’s components.[6]
• Chronic kidney disease. Metabolic syndrome is independently associated with reduced glomerular filtration and microalbuminuria, with risk rising as more components are present.[7]
• Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Insulin resistance and compensatory hyperinsulinemia contribute to excess ovarian androgen production. Women with PCOS show high rates of metabolic syndrome features, and current international guidelines recommend cardiometabolic screening for them.[8]
• Obstructive sleep apnea. Repeated drops in oxygen and fragmented sleep worsen insulin resistance and blood pressure. The relationship runs in both directions.[9]
• Hyperuricemia and gout. Metabolic syndrome prevalence rises steadily with serum uric acid concentration.[10]
• Cancer. Metabolic syndrome is associated with higher risk of liver, colorectal, pancreatic, endometrial, and postmenopausal breast cancers, among others.[11]
• Cognitive impairment and dementia. Impaired brain insulin signaling, vascular injury, and inflammation are proposed links between metabolic dysfunction and neurodegeneration.[12]

In 2023, the American Heart Association proposed a broader framework called cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome. It treats obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease as a connected, staged continuum rather than separate conditions.[13] This reflects a growing recognition that the original five-component model does not capture the full extent of the disease.

---

4. Organs Affected

Metabolic syndrome affects many organ systems, and the effects pass from one organ to another.

Adipose tissue. Adipose tissue is the main source of the problem. When subcutaneous fat stores can no longer expand to hold excess energy, fat cells enlarge, become hypoxic, and attract immune cells. Free fatty acids then spill over to other tissues. Visceral fat drains directly into the portal vein, delivering fatty acids and inflammatory signals straight to the liver.[14]

Liver. The liver accumulates fat, becomes resistant to insulin’s suppression of glucose production, and overproduces triglyceride-rich VLDL particles. This drives the atherogenic lipid pattern described above. MASLD can progress to steatohepatitis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Skeletal muscle. Muscle is the main site of insulin-stimulated glucose disposal. Fat deposits within muscle, along with lipid byproducts such as diacylglycerols and ceramides, interfere with insulin signaling and reduce glucose uptake.[15]

Pancreas. Beta cells initially compensate for insulin resistance by producing more insulin. Over time, lipotoxicity, glucotoxicity, and inflammation cause beta-cell dysfunction, and the shift from compensation to failure marks the progression to type 2 diabetes.

Heart and blood vessels. Endothelial dysfunction, reduced nitric oxide availability, arterial stiffening, and accelerated atherosclerosis affect the vessels. The heart is affected through left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Fat around the heart and vessels may also act locally as an inflammatory tissue.

Kidneys. Glomerular hyperfiltration, raised pressure within the glomerulus, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, and fat deposition in the kidney all contribute to albuminuria and declining function.

Brain. Insulin resistance affects appetite regulation in the hypothalamus, cerebral small-vessel disease, and possibly the processes underlying Alzheimer’s disease.

Reproductive organs. Effects include ovarian dysfunction in PCOS and, in men, lower testosterone and erectile dysfunction, which often signal early vascular disease.

Gastrointestinal tract. Changes in the gut microbiota and increased intestinal permeability are now considered contributors to systemic inflammation, as discussed below.

---

5. The Inflammatory Connection

5.1 Metabolic Inflammation

One of the most important findings of the past three decades is that obesity and insulin resistance involve chronic, low-grade, systemic inflammation, sometimes called metaflammation. In 1993, Hotamisligil and colleagues showed that adipose tissue in obese animals produces tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and that neutralizing it improves insulin sensitivity.[16] Ten years later, researchers showed that macrophages accumulate in adipose tissue in proportion to obesity.[17]

This inflammation differs from the acute response to infection. It is mild, persistent, and arises from metabolic stress rather than from pathogens.[18]

5.2 Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms

Several mechanisms have been identified:

• Immune cell shift in adipose tissue. As fat cells enlarge and die, macrophages gather around them in “crown-like structures.” The macrophage population shifts from anti-inflammatory to pro-inflammatory types, which release TNF-α, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-1β (IL-1β).
• Interference with insulin signaling. Inflammatory kinases, including JNK and IKKβ/NF-κB, modify insulin receptor substrate proteins in ways that block downstream insulin signaling.
• Inflammasome activation. The NLRP3 inflammasome responds to saturated fatty acids, ceramides, uric acid crystals, and cholesterol crystals by producing IL-1β. This links metabolic excess, gout, and atherosclerosis through a shared pathway.
• Altered adipokine secretion. Adiponectin, which improves insulin sensitivity and reduces inflammation, declines. Leptin rises, but its signaling becomes impaired, and resistin and other pro-inflammatory adipokines increase.
• Hepatic acute-phase response. IL-6 stimulates the liver to produce C-reactive protein (CRP). Elevated high-sensitivity CRP is common in metabolic syndrome and predicts cardiovascular events independently of other factors.

5.3 Gut-Derived Inflammation

Diets high in fat and low in fiber, along with changes in gut microbial communities, can increase intestinal permeability. This allows bacterial lipopolysaccharide to enter the circulation, a state termed metabolic endotoxemia. In animal studies, infusing low doses of lipopolysaccharide reproduced weight gain and insulin resistance.[19]

5.4 Evidence That Inflammation Causes Disease

The strongest evidence that inflammation actively drives cardiovascular disease, rather than simply accompanying it, comes from the CANTOS trial. Canakinumab, an antibody against IL-1β, reduced recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with prior heart attack and elevated CRP, without lowering LDL cholesterol.[20] The drug was not adopted for routine use because of cost and infection risk, but the trial established inflammation as a target for treatment. In a separate trial, a Mediterranean-style diet reduced inflammatory markers and improved endothelial function in patients with metabolic syndrome.[21]

---

6. Other Contributing Factors

Inflammation operates alongside several other influences, many of which interact with each other:

• Ectopic fat and lipotoxicity. Where fat is stored matters as much as how much there is. People with modest BMI but high visceral and liver fat may be at greater risk than people with higher BMI whose fat is mainly subcutaneous.[14]
• Diet and physical activity. Excess energy intake, refined carbohydrates, sugar-sweetened beverages, and inactivity remain the most significant modifiable drivers. In the Diabetes Prevention Program, an intensive lifestyle intervention reduced progression to diabetes by 58 percent, outperforming metformin.[22]
• Sleep and circadian disruption. Short sleep, shift work, and misalignment between eating times and the body clock impair glucose tolerance and raise blood pressure, even in controlled experiments.[23]
• Chronic psychosocial stress. Sustained activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and cortisol exposure promote visceral fat gain. Prospective workplace research has linked chronic job stress to later metabolic syndrome.[24]
• Hormonal factors. Menopause, androgen excess in women, testosterone deficiency in men, thyroid dysfunction, and cortisol excess all affect the syndrome’s components.
• Ethnicity and ancestry. South Asian, East Asian, Hispanic, and other populations develop metabolic complications at lower BMI and waist measurements than European-ancestry populations. This is why population-specific waist thresholds exist.[4]
• Medications. Atypical antipsychotics, glucocorticoids, some antiretroviral therapies, and certain immunosuppressants can cause or worsen metabolic syndrome features.
• Early-life influences. Maternal obesity, gestational diabetes, low birth weight, and childhood obesity are associated with later metabolic risk.
• Socioeconomic and environmental conditions. Food access, neighborhood walkability, income, and education shape exposure to nearly every factor above.

---

7. Why the Syndrome Remains Contested

In 2005, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes jointly published a critical review. They argued that the syndrome’s definition was imprecise, that its cause was unproven, that it predicted cardiovascular risk no better than its individual components, and that treating it as a syndrome added nothing beyond treating each risk factor.[3]

Supporters of the concept respond that it captures something clinically real. Clustering of risk factors identifies patients whose combined risk is underestimated when each factor is considered separately. It also directs attention to shared upstream causes, namely visceral fat, insulin resistance, and inflammation, which lifestyle change and some medications address together.

Both positions have merit. Metabolic syndrome works best as a recognition tool and a reminder of shared mechanisms. It works less well as a precise predictive score or as a distinct disease with a single cause. The CKM framework and the MASLD nomenclature can be read as attempts to keep the insight about clustering while correcting the narrowness of the original five criteria.

---

8. Implications

For clinical practice:

• Identifying any one component should prompt screening for the others, along with assessment of liver fat, kidney function, sleep apnea, and, in women, PCOS.
• Lifestyle intervention remains the first-line treatment because it addresses several components at once.
• Newer drug classes act on multiple organs. GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce weight, improve glucose control, and, as the SELECT trial showed with semaglutide, reduce cardiovascular events in people with obesity but without diabetes.[25] SGLT2 inhibitors protect the heart and kidneys.
• Measuring high-sensitivity CRP can help refine cardiovascular risk estimates.

For research:

• Better methods are needed to distinguish patient subtypes within the syndrome (for example, liver-predominant, muscle-predominant, or inflammation-predominant forms).
• Targeted anti-inflammatory therapies that avoid broad immune suppression are still being developed.
• Definitions should be validated across diverse populations, especially for waist and glucose thresholds.
• More work is needed on how social and environmental conditions translate into biological risk.

---

9. Conclusion

Metabolic syndrome is both a useful clinical concept and an imperfect scientific category. Its five diagnostic criteria serve as an entry point to a wider network of disease involving the liver, kidneys, heart, blood vessels, pancreas, muscle, brain, reproductive organs, and gut. Insulin resistance, dysfunctional visceral and ectopic fat, and chronic low-grade inflammation link these organs. Diet, activity, sleep, stress, hormones, ancestry, and environment influence each of them. The competing definitions reflect real scientific uncertainty, but the overall direction of the field is clear. These conditions are increasingly understood as connected, and effective care must address them together rather than one at a time.

---

Notes

1. Using the harmonized criteria and data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011–2016, Hirode and Wong (2020) estimated U.S. adult prevalence at about 34.7 percent, with notable increases among young adults and some ethnic groups.
2. Reaven (1988), delivered as the Banting Lecture. Reaven himself later expressed doubts about formal diagnostic criteria for the syndrome, preferring to emphasize insulin resistance as a physiological state.
3. Kahn et al. (2005). This joint ADA/EASD statement remains the most frequently cited critique of the syndrome concept.
4. Alberti et al. (2009). The joint statement was endorsed by the IDF, NHLBI, AHA, World Heart Federation, International Atherosclerosis Society, and International Association for the Study of Obesity.
5. Mottillo et al. (2010), a meta-analysis of 87 studies involving roughly 950,000 participants.
6. Rinella et al. (2023). The renaming replaced “nonalcoholic” and “fatty” with terms considered more precise and less stigmatizing. The associated steatohepatitis is now called MASH.
7. Chen et al. (2004), using NHANES III data.
8. Teede et al. (2023), the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for PCOS.
9. Drager et al. (2013).
10. Choi and Ford (2007).
11. Esposito et al. (2012). Associations differ by cancer site and sex, and some are partly explained by obesity alone.
12. de la Monte and Wands (2008) proposed the label “type 3 diabetes” for Alzheimer’s disease. The label is debated, but the mechanistic overlap is widely studied.
13. Ndumele et al. (2023). The advisory defines stages 0 through 4, from no risk factors to clinical cardiovascular disease within CKM syndrome.
14. Neeland et al. (2019).
15. Samuel and Shulman (2012).
16. Hotamisligil et al. (1993).
17. Weisberg et al. (2003).
18. Hotamisligil (2006).
19. Cani et al. (2007).
20. Ridker et al. (2017). The 150 mg dose reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by about 15 percent. Fatal infections occurred slightly more often in treated patients.
21. Esposito et al. (2004).
22. Knowler et al. (2002).
23. Scheer et al. (2009).
24. Chandola et al. (2006), using the Whitehall II cohort of British civil servants.
25. Lincoff et al. (2023).

---

References

Alberti, K. G. M. M., Eckel, R. H., Grundy, S. M., Zimmet, P. Z., Cleeman, J. I., Donato, K. A., Fruchart, J.-C., James, W. P. T., Loria, C. M., & Smith, S. C., Jr. (2009). Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: A joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation, 120(16), 1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192644

Alberti, K. G. M. M., Zimmet, P., & Shaw, J. (2005). The metabolic syndrome—a new worldwide definition. The Lancet, 366(9491), 1059–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67402-8

Cani, P. D., Amar, J., Iglesias, M. A., Poggi, M., Knauf, C., Bastelica, D., Neyrinck, A. M., Fava, F., Tuohy, K. M., Chabo, C., Waget, A., Delmée, E., Cousin, B., Sulpice, T., Chamontin, B., Ferrières, J., Tanti, J.-F., Gibson, G. R., Casteilla, L., … Burcelin, R. (2007). Metabolic endotoxemia initiates obesity and insulin resistance. Diabetes, 56(7), 1761–1772. https://doi.org/10.2337/db06-1491

Chandola, T., Brunner, E., & Marmot, M. (2006). Chronic stress at work and the metabolic syndrome: Prospective study. BMJ, 332(7540), 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38693.435301.80

Chen, J., Muntner, P., Hamm, L. L., Jones, D. W., Batuman, V., Fonseca, V., Whelton, P. K., & He, J. (2004). The metabolic syndrome and chronic kidney disease in U.S. adults. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(3), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-3-200402030-00007

Choi, H. K., & Ford, E. S. (2007). Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in individuals with hyperuricemia. The American Journal of Medicine, 120(5), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.06.040

de la Monte, S. M., & Wands, J. R. (2008). Alzheimer’s disease is type 3 diabetes—Evidence reviewed. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2(6), 1101–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229680800200619

Drager, L. F., Togeiro, S. M., Polotsky, V. Y., & Lorenzi-Filho, G. (2013). Obstructive sleep apnea: A cardiometabolic risk in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 62(7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.045

Esposito, K., Chiodini, P., Colao, A., Lenzi, A., & Giugliano, D. (2012). Metabolic syndrome and risk of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care, 35(11), 2402–2411. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc12-0336

Esposito, K., Marfella, R., Ciotola, M., Di Palo, C., Giugliano, F., Giugliano, G., D’Armiento, M., D’Andrea, F., & Giugliano, D. (2004). Effect of a Mediterranean-style diet on endothelial dysfunction and markers of vascular inflammation in the metabolic syndrome: A randomized trial. JAMA, 292(12), 1440–1446. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.12.1440

Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. (2001). Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA, 285(19), 2486–2497. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.19.2486

Grundy, S. M., Cleeman, J. I., Daniels, S. R., Donato, K. A., Eckel, R. H., Franklin, B. A., Gordon, D. J., Krauss, R. M., Savage, P. J., Smith, S. C., Jr., Spertus, J. A., & Costa, F. (2005). Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: An American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute scientific statement. Circulation, 112(17), 2735–2752. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.169404

Hirode, G., & Wong, R. J. (2020). Trends in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in the United States, 2011–2016. JAMA, 323(24), 2526–2528. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.4501

Hotamisligil, G. S. (2006). Inflammation and metabolic disorders. Nature, 444(7121), 860–867. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05485

Hotamisligil, G. S., Shargill, N. S., & Spiegelman, B. M. (1993). Adipose expression of tumor necrosis factor-α: Direct role in obesity-linked insulin resistance. Science, 259(5091), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7678183

Kahn, R., Buse, J., Ferrannini, E., & Stern, M. (2005). The metabolic syndrome: Time for a critical appraisal. Joint statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 28(9), 2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.9.2289

Knowler, W. C., Barrett-Connor, E., Fowler, S. E., Hamman, R. F., Lachin, J. M., Walker, E. A., & Nathan, D. M. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012512

Lincoff, A. M., Brown-Frandsen, K., Colhoun, H. M., Deanfield, J., Emerson, S. S., Esbjerg, S., Hardt-Lindberg, S., Hovingh, G. K., Kahn, S. E., Kushner, R. F., Lingvay, I., Oral, T. K., Michelsen, M. M., Plutzky, J., Tornøe, C. W., & Ryan, D. H. (2023). Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 389(24), 2221–2232. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307563

Mottillo, S., Filion, K. B., Genest, J., Joseph, L., Pilote, L., Poirier, P., Rinfret, S., Schiffrin, E. L., & Eisenberg, M. J. (2010). The metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 56(14), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.034

Ndumele, C. E., Rangaswami, J., Chow, S. L., Neeland, I. J., Tuttle, K. R., Khan, S. S., Coresh, J., Mathew, R. O., Baker-Smith, C. M., Carnethon, M. R., Després, J.-P., Ho, J. E., Joseph, J. J., Kernan, W. N., Khera, A., Kosiborod, M. N., Lekavich, C. L., Lewis, E. F., Lo, K. B., … Rangaswami, J. (2023). Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health: A presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 148(20), 1606–1635. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001184

Neeland, I. J., Ross, R., Després, J.-P., Matsuzawa, Y., Yamashita, S., Shai, I., Seidell, J., Magni, P., Santos, R. D., Arsenault, B., Cuevas, A., Hu, F. B., Griffin, B. A., Zambon, A., Barter, P., Fruchart, J.-C., & Eckel, R. H. (2019). Visceral and ectopic fat, atherosclerosis, and cardiometabolic disease: A position statement. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 7(9), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30084-1

Reaven, G. M. (1988). Role of insulin resistance in human disease. Diabetes, 37(12), 1595–1607. https://doi.org/10.2337/diab.37.12.1595

Ridker, P. M., Everett, B. M., Thuren, T., MacFadyen, J. G., Chang, W. H., Ballantyne, C., Fonseca, F., Nicolau, J., Koenig, W., Anker, S. D., Kastelein, J. J. P., Cornel, J. H., Pais, P., Pella, D., Genest, J., Cifkova, R., Lorenzatti, A., Forster, T., Kobalava, Z., … Glynn, R. J. (2017). Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 377(12), 1119–1131. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914

Rinella, M. E., Lazarus, J. V., Ratziu, V., Francque, S. M., Sanyal, A. J., Kanwal, F., Romero, D., Abdelmalek, M. F., Anstee, Q. M., Arab, J. P., Arrese, M., Bataller, R., Beuers, U., Boursier, J., Bugianesi, E., Byrne, C. D., Castro Narro, G. E., Chowdhury, A., Cortez-Pinto, H., … Newsome, P. N. (2023). A multisociety Delphi consensus statement on new fatty liver disease nomenclature. Hepatology, 78(6), 1966–1986. https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000520

Samuel, V. T., & Shulman, G. I. (2012). Mechanisms for insulin resistance: Common threads and missing links. Cell, 148(5), 852–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.017

Scheer, F. A. J. L., Hilton, M. F., Mantzoros, C. S., & Shea, S. A. (2009). Adverse metabolic and cardiovascular consequences of circadian misalignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11), 4453–4458. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808180106

Teede, H. J., Tay, C. T., Laven, J. J. E., Dokras, A., Moran, L. J., Piltonen, T. T., Costello, M. F., Boivin, J., Redman, L. M., Boyle, J. A., Norman, R. J., Mousa, A., & Joham, A. E. (2023). Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 108(10), 2447–2469. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad463

Weisberg, S. P., McCann, D., Desai, M., Rosenbaum, M., Leibel, R. L., & Ferrante, A. W., Jr. (2003). Obesity is associated with macrophage accumulation in adipose tissue. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 112(12), 1796–1808. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI19246

---