Loading
Protease and Inhibitor Mechanisms / Adipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases · Journal article
Journal of Clinical Medicine · September 9, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This cross-sectional study of 190 adults stratified by BMI and insulin resistance found that serum suPAR did not differ across metabolic obesity phenotypes and did not correlate with insulin resistance, contradicting its proposed use as an insulin resistance marker. CXCL10 associated with adiposity independent of insulin resistance, whereas suPAR and IL-6 did not separate phenotypes; these findings do not support suPAR as a marker of metabolic risk beyond body fat.
Cross-sectional observational study. 190 adults aged 18–60 years from internal medicine outpatient clinics; stratified by BMI and HOMA-IR into four groups: NOIS (n=64), NOIR (n=50), OIS (n=33), OIR (n=43).. Intervention: None; observational cross-sectional study measuring biomarkers.. Compared with: Four metabolic obesity phenotypes defined by BMI and HOMA-IR.. n = 190. Not stated.
Serum suPAR did not differ across four metabolic phenotypes (p = 0.19) and did not correlate with HOMA-IR (ρ = −0.09, p = 0.24) IL-6 was lower in OIR group than NOIS group (p = 0.012) CXCL10 was higher in both obese phenotypes than non-obese phenotypes (p < 0.001); rank-based two-factor analysis attributed this to obesity (p < 0.001) not insulin resistance (p = 0.71)
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
These findings do not support suPAR as a biomarker of insulin resistance independent of body fat and suggest it may not usefully stratify metabolic phenotypes in clinical practice. CXCL10 associates with adiposity but lacks established clinical utility for risk assessment or phenotyping.
Single-center cross-sectional study with modest sample size examining biomarker associations across obesity phenotypes; findings are descriptive and do not establish clinical utility or causation.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
These findings do not support suPAR as a biomarker of insulin resistance independent of body fat and suggest it may not usefully stratify metabolic phenotypes in clinical practice. CXCL10 associates with adiposity but lacks established clinical utility for risk assessment or phenotyping.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
Background: The classification of metabolic risk solely based on body mass index (BMI) fails to acknowledge the heterogeneity inherent in obesity. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has been proposed as a stable biomarker of chronic inflammation; however, its behaviour across metabolic obesity phenotypes defined jointly by adiposity and insulin resistance remains uncertain. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 190 adults aged 18 to 60 years attending internal medicine outpatient clinics were stratified by BMI (≥30 kg/m2) and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR ≥ 2.5) into four phenotypes: non-obese insulin-sensitive (NOIS, n = 64), non-obese insulin-resistant (NOIR, n = 50), obese insulin-sensitive (OIS, n = 33), and obese insulin-resistant (OIR, n = 43). Serum suPAR, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10) were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Group comparisons, rank-based two-factor analyses, correlation analyses, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. Results: Serum suPAR did not differ across the four phenotypes (p = 0.19) and was not correlated with HOMA-IR (ρ = −0.09, p = 0.24). IL-6 was lower in the OIR group than in the NOIS group (p = 0.012). CXCL10 was higher in both obese phenotypes than in both non-obese phenotypes (p < 0.001), and rank-based two-factor analysis attributed this difference to obesity (p < 0.001) rather than insulin resistance (p = 0.71). CXCL10 correlated with BMI (ρ = 0.29, p < 0.001) and remained associated with obesity after adjustment for age, sex, and C-reactive protein (odds ratio per 10 ng/L, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.18). CXCL10 discriminated obesity with an area under the ROC curve of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.81). None of the three biomarkers discriminated insulin resistance (areas under the curve, 0.43 to 0.50). The association between CXCL10 and obesity was consistent in both sexes and unchanged with alternative HOMA-IR cutoffs of 2.0 and 3.0. Conclusions: In this cohort, circulating CXCL10 tracked adiposity rather than insulin resistance, whereas suPAR and IL-6 did not separate metabolic obesity phenotypes. These findings do not support suPAR as a marker of insulin resistance independently of body fat.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.