Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Typical abdominal ultrasound image in obesity patient.

The thickness values of the muscle tissues was determined as the distances between the skin and fat—muscle tissue interface and between the fat—muscle tissue interface and muscle—abdominal cavity boundary. (A) Subcutaneous fat thickness, (B) Muscle thickness.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Reference values for sarcopenia using ultrasound MTH and SMI.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Physical characteristics of subjects.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

MetS-related parameter and functional measurement.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Relationship of MetS risk score to variable using multiple regression analysis.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 2.

Comparison of HbA1c between GO and SO groups, as defined by abdominal MTH and SMI.

GO, General obesity; SO, Sarcopenic obesity; MTH, Muscle thickness; SMI, Skeletal muscle index. ** P < 0.01 for significant differences relative to the GO group using ANCOVA, with adjustments for covariates of sex, age, and body mass index.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Comparison of the number of MetS risk factors between GO and SO groups, as defined by abdominal MTH and SMI.

GO, General obesity; SO, Sarcopenic obesity; MetS, Metabolic syndrome; MTH, Muscle thickness; SMI, Skeletal muscle index. * P < 0.05 for significant differences relative to the GO group using ANCOVA, with adjustments for covariates of sex, age, and body mass index.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of physical characteristics and MetS-related parameter between GO and SO defined by abdominal MTH and SMI.

More »

Table 5 Expand