Assessment of the association between body composition and risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is defined as the condition of fat accumulation in the liver. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the relationship between body composition and fatty liver and determine of cut-off point for predicting NAFLD. Samples were selected from the nutrition clinic from 2016 to 2017 in Tehran, Iran. The liver steatosis was calculated using the CAP score through the FiroScan™ and body composition was measured using the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan method. A total of 2160 patients participated in this study, 745 (34.5%) subjects had NAFLD. We found that fat-free tissue was inversely and fat tissue was directly correlated with the risk of NAFLD in almost all factors and the risk of developing NAFLD increases if the total fat exceeds 32.23% and 26.73% in women and men and abdominal fat exceeds 21.42% and 13.76% in women and men, respectively. Finally, we realized that the total fat percent had the highest AUC (0.932 for men and 0.917 for women) to predict the risk of NAFLD. Overall, the likelihood of NAFLD development rose significantly with increasing the amount of total fat and abdominal fat from the cut-off point level.

Introduction

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is defined as the condition of fat accumulation in the liver with no history of extreme alcohol abuse (< 30 g/d in men and < 20 g/d in women) and in the absence of other liver diseases [1,2]. The disease range varies from NAFLD to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) [1]. NASH is a severe clinical form of NAFLD that has become one of the major causes of liver transplant [3]. As in other liver diseases, NAFLD can also induce hepatic fibrosis and lead to such diseases as cirrhosis, liver and colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and obesity, or exacerbate their progression [4-6]. Of these, approximately 10–25% and 5–8% of these patients develop NASH and liver cirrhosis, respectively, within 5 years [2].

On the other hand, the severity of fatty liver in these patients is associated with impaired blood glucose status [7]. NAFLD is also predicted to be a major cause of liver transplantation over the next 10 years [8]. Studies suggest that the prevalence of NAFLD is influenced by age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic area [9]. Besides, various studies have examined the association between obesity and NAFLD. In this regard, a meta-analysis study reported that metabolism-related serological indicators in people with NAFLD who have BMI over 25were significantly higher than those of lean NAFLD patients [10]. Also, another systematic review study demonstrated that people with NAFLD who have BMI over 25 also had a higher risk of liver fibrosis and NASH than lean individuals [11] and that significant weight loss (a 7%-10% reduction in BMI) reduced the progression of hepatic fibrosis [12]. Some studies, on the other hand, do not confirm such a relationship and suggest that obesity does not lead to advanced liver disease and NASH in patients with NAFLD [6].

Although the disease is more prevalent (about 80%) in individuals with obesity and obesity is an important risk factor for its development with greater complications [11], it is also expected to occur in lean and even normal-weight individuals [10]. As such, significant percentages of people with this disease in Asia have a low BMI and in Asians, WHO suggests a lower BMI cut-off as a risk factor for non-communicable diseases[13,14]. Furthermore, the diagnosis may be delayed since the risk factors for fatty liver present in individuals with obesity do not exist in lean individuals [10]. A meta-analysis study in this area showed that the risk of metabolic abnormalities and cardiovascular disease was not in general significantly different between obese and lean subjects with NAFLD [10]. The study eventually suggested that abdominal fat, or central obesity, could be a major factor in the pathogenesis of NAFLD in lean-NAFLD individuals [10]. Central obesity or visceral fat (VF) [determined by waist circumference (WC)] is defined as the presence of excess fat in the abdomen, and this type of obesity is often associated with the development and progression of NAFLD or more advanced forms of liver disease [15]. Thus, measurement of body composition rather than BMI may be helpful in the prediction of NAFLD [5,15].

Nowadays, increasing NAFLD in Iran is considered a public health problem. Therefore, it is expected that this issue is a health priority to be further addressed with more studies on its risk factors, including environmental and nutritional factors. Other studies have either examined BMI or obesity and fatty liver [16] or generally studied body fat [6,17]. Yet, none of them investigated the relationship between different organs of the body composition separately with fatty liver and thereby does not predict a cut-off point for any. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship in different organs between body composition together with fatty liver in patients with NAFLD and the group without it, and determine a cut-off point based on total fat and abdominal fat, in Tehran, Iran.

Materials and methods

Study design and sample

The present study was a cross-sectional study in which samples were randomly selected using a convenience sampling method from clients of a university-affiliated nutrition clinic in Tehran-Iran from April 2016 to late September 2017. During this time, 2842 individuals were referred to the clinic for nutritional counseling all of whom were new cases evaluated at primary visits. The present findings are part of a larger study which investigated factors affecting fatty liver in an Iranian population (Tehran), which is still in progress. This clinic is a private center that offers a wide variety of nutrition therapies such as weight loss, eating disorders and sports nutrition. It is noteworthy that participants were selected through stratified random sampling to include an acceptable proportion of all age and sex groups with Iranian nationality.

The inclusion criteria were consent for participation and no history of extreme alcohol abuse (< 30 g/d in men and < 20 g/d in women). Exclusion criteria included one of the diseases affecting the patient’s metabolic status, such as cancer, liver disease (including liver cancer and hepatitis), diabetes diagnosed definitively, consumption of diabetes medicines, thyroid disorders, and chemotherapy procedures. We also excluded people who were on a diet in the last three months and took blood sugar/fat lowering pills, as well as participants younger than 18 and over 65 years of age.

The study protocol followed the Helsinki Declaration and was confirmed by the Ethics Committee of Fasa University of Medical Sciences (Approval Code: IR.FUMS.REC.1397.172). The participants were informed about the research objectives and the written informed consent was obtained from the subjects before starting the survey.

Data collection

All participants were initially briefed about the aims of this study and its potential benefits. Then, informed consent was obtained from those who were willing to participate. Afterwards, a demographic questionnaire, including age, sex, smoking status, and menopausal status of women, was completed by a trained questioner. Then, a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), containing 168 food items, was filled out for all participants [18]. In addition to food items, the questionnaire also included portion size information for the measurements of standard food size. The questionnaire was completed based on the frequency of food items used during the past day, month and year as well as on the standard portion size. We converted the values collected for each meal to grams per day (g/d) using a household scale manual and calculated energy consumption by the subjects. To calculate the activity level of individuals, each activity was multiplied by the number of implementation days and duration of the activity, which is reported by the Metabolic Equivalent (MET) unit.

Anthropometric indices (height, weight, BMI and WC) were measured by a trained expert using standard instruments including a tape meter, stadiometer (0.1 cm precision), and a 767-digital scale (± 0.1 kg; Seca, Japan). BMI was obtained by dividing weight (kg) by the square of the height (m2). WC was taken at the midway between the superior border of the iliac crest and the lowest rib in a standing position and after exhaling. Thereafter, blood pressure was measured after a 15-min rest in a sitting position (sphygmomanometer, mercury, ALPK1, Japan). For accuracy, this assessment was repeated after 15 minutes and the mean of both measurements was recorded as the blood pressure of each subject.

Subsequently, participants were referred to a central laboratory to perform relevant tests [fasting blood sugar (FBS), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)]. For these, 10 ml of venous blood was taken after 10 h of fasting, and all tests were performed by Pars Azmoon kits-Iran. GGT was measured by enzymatic methods base on SZASZ’s approach, and AST and ALT by the kinetic method. HDL-C, TG, and total cholesterol levels were also determined by the enzymatic method, and then reported in mg/dl. Besides, the Friedewald formula (FF) was employed to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [19].

The liver steatosis was calculated using FiroScan™ (Echosens, Paris, France) by a reliable sonographer, XL probe in this case [20]. Besides, for measuring fat in the liver, the Controlled Attenuation Parameter (CAP) with the decibels per meter (dB/m) units was used (Pearson correlation = 0.698, P-value < 0.001). According to the results of CAP scores, participants were divide into four groups, where normal liver or S0 steatosis grade was defined at CAP< 238 dB/m which indicates 0 to 11% of the fat in the liver. Mild (S1 steatosis grade) and moderate fatty liver (S2 steatosis grade) are determined at 238–260 dB/m and 260–293 dB/m which shows 11 to 33% and 33 to 66% of fat in the liver, respectively. In this regard, severe fatty liver or S3 steatosis grade occurs at CAP> 293 dB/m, indicating above 66% of the fat exist in the liver. Liver stiffness measurement by FiroScan™ (LSM) was reported in decibel (dB).

Body composition measurement

There are different methods to measure body composition, among which the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technique has been recommended to be suitable for measuring body composition, including fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) [21]. On the other hand, another study has suggested the DXA method for assessing body composition and VF distribution in obese patients with NAFLD [22]. DXA estimates body composition by the absorption of photons in tissues and reports total body weight in FM, FFM and bone minerals [22].

In the present study, body composition was measured through a Lunar instrument (Lunar iDXA, GE Healthcare, Wisconsin, USA), which evaluates the whole body using DXA scanning, and is a standard tool for body mass measurement [22,23]. Fat mass and fat-free mass in the right and left arms, left and right thighs, trunk, and abdomen were measured by this device; also, it measured total fat and total fat-free mass, all of which were reported in grams. It should be noted that the subjects were scanned by this device in the supine position for 15 minutes with no additional movement according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Statistical analyses

Based on the results of normal data distribution, mean values (± SD) were used for quantitative variables. Univariate variables were analyzed by independent samples t-tests. The relationship between fatty liver with body composition was examined by the Pearson correlation test. Curve analysis was also performed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) to obtain cut-off points and area under the ROC curve (AUC) for associations between abdominal and total fat with NAFLD. Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 16 and P-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 2842 individuals were referred to the clinic, among whom 2160 patients participated in this study and 682 individuals did not intend to participate or had an exclusion criterion. Among all participants, 745 (34.5%) subjects had NAFLD, while 1415 (65.5%) did not. Table 1 (S1 and S2 Tables by sex) shows demographic data, results of laboratory tests, and anthropometric characteristics of the study population. The table also reveals the result of liver stiffness measurement by FibroScan™ (LSM). Subjects with NAFLD had significantly lower physical activity and HDL-C, but higher LDL-C, TG, TC, blood glucose, blood pressure, and energy intake than those without NAFLD. Diastolic hypertension had the highest association with NAFLD. Besides the factors mentioned in Table 1, fat-free mass and fat mass were scanned through DXA [based on kilogram (kg)] in the different organs (thigh, arm, and abdomen), and OR (odds ratio) were calculated.

Table 1

Demographic and basic information of the participants in the group without NAFLD and NAFLD patients.

		The group without NAFLD (N = 1415)		NAFLD patient (N = 745)		P-value*	OR	95% C.I.
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD			Lower	Upper
Age (years)		35	9	49	8	<0.001	1.19	1.173	1.207
Weight (Kg)		80.8	12.2	96.1	11.5	<0.001	1.103	1.093	1.113
BMI (Kg/m2)		25.4	4.1	30.9	3.4	<0.001	1.413	1.371	1.457
WC (cm)		96.49	16.04	118.10	12.77	<0.001	1.097	1.088	1.106
Physical Activity (MET/24h)		24.9	5.0	18.3	4.5	<0.001	0.762	0.744	0.781
Energy (Kcal)		2405.49	413.73	2664.98	460.11	<0.001	1.001	1.001	1.002
FBS (mg/dL)		99.39	13.53	118.29	13.15	<0.001	1.102	1.092	1.111
LDL-C (mg/dL)		93.72	15.56	113.71	16.61	<0.001	1.077	1.069	1.085
HDL-C (mg/dL)		48.18	7.95	38.88	7.08	<0.001	0.858	0.846	0.871
TG (mg/dL)		186.57	26.15	214.28	25.03	<0.001	1.041	1.037	1.045
TC (mg/dL)		176.01	17.11	195.40	16.18	<0.001	1.072	1.064	1.079
SBP (mmHg)		120.47	10.63	130.09	10.66	<0.001	1.256	1.188	1.327
DBP (mmHg)		80.04	10.02	80.84	9.6	<0.001	2.205	1.997	2.435
GGT (mg/dL)		24.17	10.60	35.87	13.24	<0.001	1.085	1.075	1.094
ALT (UL/L)		40.55	14.55	57.92	13.71	<0.001	1.083	1.075	1.092
AST (UL/L)		32.51	14.03	49.33	12.52	<0.001	1.091	1.082	1.100
LSM (dB)		216.08	43.29	273.86	34.84	<0.001	-	-	-
Left Arm Fat (kg)		2.577	1.63	4.066	1.55	<0.001	1.703	1.604	1.808
Right Arm Fat (kg)		2.646	1.69	4.201	1.59	<0.001	1.685	1.590	1.786
Left Leg Fat (kg)		3.802	2.57	6.644	2.37	<0.001	1.514	1453	1.577
Right Leg Fat (kg)		3.820	2.61	6.679	2.38	<0.001	1.503	1.443	1.564
Abdominal Fat (kg)		6.456	4.18	12.072	3.47	<0.001	5.646	4.535	7.029
Total Fat (kg)		22.309	9.62	37.018	7.84	<0.001	1.216	1.197	1.236
Left Arm FatFree (kg)		1.851	.46	1.809	.42	.039	0.813	0.668	0.990
Right Arm FatFree (kg)		1.862	.46	1.819	.42	.036	0.808	0.662	0.986
Left Leg FatFree (kg)		4.563	.62	4.506	.66	.048	0.870	0.757	0.999
Right Leg FatFree (kg)		4.597	.63	4.504	.62	.001	0.789	0.685	0.910
Abdominal FatFree (kg)		11.686	1.33	11.100	1.12	<0.001	0.692	0.643	0.745
Total FatFree (kg)		23.994	2.99	23.260	2.49	<0.001	0.910	0.881	0.940
		N	%	N	%
Sex	Female	656	62.1%	401	37.9%	0.001	0.741	0.621	0.886
Smoking	Yes	240	17%	125	16.8%	0.914	1.013	0.799	1.284

BMI, body mass index; FBS, Fasting Blood Sugar; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; TC, Total cholesterol; SBP, Systolic Blood Pressure; DBP, Diastolic Blood Pressure; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; LSM, liver stiffness measurement by FibroScan.

*. Independent samples t-tests.

The relationship between NAFLD with each factor of body composition was examined separately in women and men by the Pearson correlation test (Tables 2 and 3). It was found that fat-free tissue was inversely correlated with the risk of NAFLD in all factors of both women and men, except the right arm fat-free in men. The highest correlation was observed with trunk fat-free and total fat-free in both males and females, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 also show that the likelihood of NAFLD increases with thicker fat tissue in all factors, and the uppermost relationships were observed between trunk fat and total fat with NAFLD in both men and women.

Table 2

Correlation of fatty liver by body composition in women.

NAFLD

Left Arm Fat

Right Arm Fat

Left Leg Fat

Right Leg Fat

Trunk Fat

Total Fat

Left Arm FatFree

Right Arm FatFree

Left Leg FatFree

Right Leg FatFree

Trunk_FatFree

Total FatFree

NAFLD

1

.733**

.742**

.748**

.749**

.756**

.750**

-.167**

-.167**

-.076*

-.130**

-.326**

-.289**

Left Arm Fat

.733**

1

.937**

.934**

.936**

.952**

.940**

-.243**

-.245**

-.130**

-.158**

-.453**

-.353**

Right Arm Fat

.742**

.937**

1

.943**

.949**

.957**

.949**

-.250**

-.250**

-.142**

-.179**

-.462**

-.380**

Left Leg Fat

.748**

.934**

.943**

1

.948**

.956**

.949**

-.241**

-.262**

-.132**

-.172**

-.451**

-.373**

Right Leg Fat

.749**

.936**

.949**

.948**

1

.956**

.953**

-.242**

-.255**

-.133**

-.182**

-.457**

-.375**

Trunk Fat

.756**

.952**

.957**

.956**

.956**

1

.966**

-.242**

-.253**

-.130**

-.172**

-.464**

-.380**

Total Fat

.750**

.940**

.949**

.949**

.953**

.966**

1

-.246**

-.239**

-.125**

-.179**

-.447**

-.366**

Left Arm FatFree

-.167**

-.243**

-.250**

-.241**

-.242**

-.242**

-.246**

1

.335**

.205**

.276**

.375**

.347**

Right Arm FatFree

-.167**

-.245**

-.250**

-.262**

-.255**

-.253**

-.239**

.335**

1

.284**

.302**

.376**

.366**

Left Leg FatFree

-.076*

-.130**

-.142**

-.132**

-.133**

-.130**

-.125**

.205**

.284**

1

.260**

.290**

.257**

Right Leg FatFree

-.130**

-.158**

-.179**

-.172**

-.182**

-.172**

-.179**

.276**

.302**

.260**

1

.312**

.252**

Trunk_FatFree

-.326**

-.453**

-.462**

-.451**

-.457**

-.464**

-.447**

.375**

.376**

.290**

.312**

1

.452**

Total FatFree

-.289**

-.353**

-.380**

-.373**

-.375**

-.380**

-.366**

.347**

.366**

.257**

252**

.452**

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed);

#. Pearson correlation test. NAFLD; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Table 3

Correlation of fatty liver by body composition in men.

NAFLD

Left Arm Fat

Right Arm Fat

Left Leg Fat

Right Leg Fat

Trunk Fat

Total Fat

Left Arm FatFree

Right Arm FatFree

Left Leg FatFree

Right Leg FatFree

Trunk_FatFree

Total FatFree

NAFLD

1

.745**

.745**

.744**

.751**

.769**

.757**

-.025

.017

-.022

-.103**

-.189**

-.110**

Left Arm Fat

.745**

1

.837**

.854**

.853**

.878**

.872**

-.086**

-.056

-.068*

-.104**

-.264**

-.160**

Right Arm Fat

.745**

.837**

1

.863**

.849**

.889**

.872**

-.114**

-.070*

-.080**

-.126**

-.282**

-.186**

Left Leg Fat

.744**

.854**

.863**

1

.881**

.902**

.887**

-.112**

-.056

-.074*

-.122**

-.280**

-.187**

Right Leg Fat

.751**

.853**

.849**

.881**

1

.903**

.871**

-.080**

-.051

-.064*

-.128**

-.288**

-.179**

Trunk Fat

.769**

.878**

.889**

.902**

.903**

1

.905**

-.114**

-.078**

-.080**

-.145**

-.311**

-.200**

Total Fat

.757**

.872**

.872**

.887**

.871**

.905**

1

-.101**

-.061*

-.072*

-.137**

-.282**

-.179**

Left Arm FatFree

-.025

-.086**

-.114**

-.112**

-.080**

-.114**

-.101**

1

.232**

.251**

.207**

.320**

.292**

Right Arm FatFree

.017

-.056

-.070*

-.056

-.051

-.078**

-.061*

.232**

1

.227**

.237**

.370**

.316**

Left Leg FatFree

-.022

-.068*

-.080**

-.074*

-.064*

-.080**

-.072*

.251**

.227**

1

.248**

.257**

.303**

Right Leg FatFree

-.103**

-.104**

-.126**

-.122**

-.128**

-.145**

-.137**

.207**

.237**

.248**

1

.261**

.261**

Trunk_FatFree

-.189**

-.264**

-.282**

-.280**

-.288**

-.311**

-.282**

.320**

.370**

.257**

.261**

1

.436**

Total FatFree

-.110**

-.160**

-.186**

-.187**

-.179**

-.200**

-.179**

.292**

.316**

.303**

.261**

.436**

1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed);

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed);

#. Pearson correlation test. NAFLD; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Table 4 demonstrates the cut-off point for predicting NAFLD in men and women based on the percentage of total fat and abdominal fat. As shown in the table, the risk of developing NAFLD increases if the total fat exceeds 32.23% in women and 26.73% in men. Moreover, the risk of developing NAFLD rises if the abdominal fat exceeds 21.42% and 13.76% in females and males, respectively.

Table 4

Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis for defining the ideal fat percentage of body weight cut-off point based on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

		Cut-off Point	Sensitivity	Specificity	AUC	PPV	NPV	PLR	NLR
Female	Total fat	32.23	90.02	81.10	0.932	74.4	93.0	4.76	0.12
	Abdominal fat	21.42	76.81	85.06	0.878	75.9	85.7	5.14	0.27
Male	Total fat	26.73	91.28	77.60	0.917	65.1	95.0	4.11	0.12
	Abdominal fat	13.76	90.70	76.94	0.898	64.1	94.8	3.93	0.12

AUC: Area under the curve; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; PLR: Positive likelihood ratio; NLR: Negative likelihood ratio.

The optimum cut-off was defined as the point on the ROC curve with the maximum sensitivity + specificity (Youden method).

Fig 1 reveals ROC curves for NAFLD using body fat percent in women and men. The ROC curve was calculated to compare the predictive power of body fat percentage (BFP) for the risk of NAFLD. The cut-off points of body fat percent showing maximum sensitivity for detecting the NAFLD was total fat present in men (sensitivity 91.28%, specificity 77.60%) and then in women (sensitivity 90.02%, Specificity 81.10%). Besides, among four factors of BFP, total fat percent appeared to have the highest AUC (0.932 for men and 0.917 for women) to predict the risk of NAFLD.

Fig 1

ROC curves for NAFLD using body fat percent.

(a) ROC for Total Fat in Males (b) ROC for Abdominal Fat in Males, (c) ROC for Total Fat in Females (d) ROC for Abdominal Fat in Females.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to compare NAFLD with body composition in an Iranian population. As a novelty, we compared different organs of fat and fat-free tissues separately with the risk of NAFLD and determined the cut-off point based on total and abdominal fat percentage. The present study revealed that increased adipose tissue and decreased fat-free tissue in almost all organs increased the likelihood of NAFLD. Finally, our observations indicated that the risk of NAFLD development rises if total fat increases by 32.23% in women and 26.73% in men, which had maximum sensitivity and predictability for detecting the NAFLD.

The main difference between the present and previous studies [16] is the use of body composition rather than BMI. However, one study has even reported a significant linear relationship between NAFLD and BMI (above 25 kg/m2) [16]. Even so, being lean or having a BMI less than 18.5 kg/m2 does not necessarily mean being healthy lean because a large amount of abdominal adipose tissue was reported in lean-NAFLD compared to lean NAFLD-free subjects [10]. On the other hand, abdominal fat itself appears to be a key factor in determining TG and TC levels in NAFLD, which is nearly identical in both obese and lean individuals with NAFLD [10].

Saida et al. studied 1,851 women and 1,259 men in Japan and found that in addition to BMI, increased BFP was also directly associated with fatty liver disease, and body fat levels were not necessarily high in people with high BMI’s [17]. Accordingly, it can be concluded that people who are classified in normal and even lean classes in terms of BMI do not necessarily have low total fat or are less likely to develop NAFLD.

In the present study, there was a significant likelihood of the development of NAFLD if the total fat and abdominal fat, respectively, exceeded 32.23% and 21.42% in women and 26.73% and 13.76% in men. The results of other studies are contradictory. Saida et al. found a significant relationship between BMI and BFP with fatty liver in men, but this association was not significant in women (despite a higher BFP than that of men) [17]. On the other hand, other studies reported noteworthy results indicating that although obesity increased in men with age, BFP rose only marginally. It was opposite in women, i.e., reduced obesity but increased mean BFP with age [24,25]. In another study, Motamed et al. reported that the prevalence of NAFLD was higher in men under 40 years of age than in women, but it was more prevalent in women over 60 years of age [26]. These differences may be explained by the lower muscle mass in women than men [17], differences in sex hormones [26], and different body composition, hence the incidence of NAFLD varies between women and men.

Notably, percentage of total fat in women and men of the same age is remarkably different. In fact, total fat is divided into “essential” and “storage" fats. Essential fat has been defined as the fundamental fat for normal physiologic functioning which consists of around 3% and 12% total body of males and females, respectively. On the other hand, storage fat is considered an energy reserve which is expendable and stored in adipose tissue. Thus, the average total fat of an individual (essential fat plus storage fat) in men and women is estimated to be 18–24 percent and 25–31 percent, respectively [27]. Since the percentage of total fat in women is higher than men due to their physiological condition, the amount of total fat affected in diseases such as NAFLD should typically be higher in them than in males. Similarly, in men, the lower amount of total and abdominal fat affects the development of fatty liver, which does not necessarily mean that they develop NAFLD easily.

According to our findings, there was an increased risk of NAFLD if the percentage of abdominal or VF and total fat exceeded a certain cut-off point, which was not different in obese or lean individuals. Matsuzawa et al. stated that as VF has a higher metabolism than subcutaneous fat, it mobilizes free fatty acids (FFA) to the liver [28], which is an important risk factor for NAFLD development. Similarly, Sogabe et al. [29], Abenavoli et al. [15], and Bouchi et al. [30] reported that VF or central obesity is a major factor in the development of NAFLD. Besides, other investigations have identified VF or abdominal fat as a key factor in the incidence of NAFLD or other liver diseases [31,32]. In this regard, Ko et al. found that increases in BFP and VF raised the risk of NAFLD by 6.5 and 17.8 times, respectively [32]. However, some studies reported contrasting results. Choudhary et al., for example, concluded that both total adipose tissue and subcutaneous adipose tissue volume were correlated with the severity of NAFLD, but no relationship was found between VF volume and NAFLD [33]. It seems that more studies are needed in this respect.

Based on our data, fat-free tissue had a preventive effect on different organs and, conversely, adipose tissue in different tissues increased the likelihood of NAFLD. Nonetheless, the highest risks were recorded in trunk fat and total fat, and the protective properties were uppermost in trunk fat-free and total fat-free, respectively, in both men and women. In another study based on DXA analysis, abdominal circumference and waist-to-height ratio were associated with trunk fat mass in obese NAFLD patients [34], which is consistent with the present study. Likewise, another study reported that, although body fat and trunk fat percentages were significantly different between subjects with and without NAFLD, there were no significant differences in the extremity fat percentage between the two groups [22]. Differences in studied populations and the type of device used to measure body composition might have caused these differences.

In the current trial, the levels of TG, LDL-C, and TC were significantly higher in the NAFLD group, and HDL-C levels were significantly lower than in the group without this disorder, which differs from those of other reports. A systematic review reported that blood cholesterol was not significantly different between obese and non-obese subjects with NAFLD [6]. Ko et al., on the other hand, observed that elevated TG and lower HDL-C could be considered as a risk factor for NAFLD [32], which is confirmed by the present study. It seems that more studies are needed in this regard.

In the present study, WC, FBS, and blood pressure were significantly higher in subjects with NAFLD. Studies indicate that since BMI does not represent body composition, measuring WC for prediction of NAFLD provides a better insight than using BMI [35]. Ko et al. reported that WC greater than 90 cm in men and above 80 cm in women increased the risk of NAFLD by 9.8 times [32]. Another study reported waist cut-off points of 89 cm in men and 84 cm in women for the risk of NAFLD [34]. Also, Motamed et al. reported that WC measurement is a more appropriate and convenient index for prediction of NAFLD [26]. Other studies also reported results consistent with our research [36].

Based on our result, the percentages of total fat had the highest sensitivity to predict the risk of NAFLD. In other populations, the result was contradicted. For instance, the study conducted in China (n = 3589) showed an independent positive relationship of android fat mass and an inverse relationship of muscle mass with NAFLD [37]. Besides, one research in the Netherlands (n = 4609) reported that both increases in fat mass and decreases in skeletal muscle mass were associated with NAFLD in normal-weight individuals, and fat distribution could be the best predictor for developing NAFLD [38]. The results of both of the two studies mentioned above were consistent with our results. On the other hand, the study carried out in Korea (n = 452) indicated that people with lower muscle mass had a higher risk for developing NAFLD [39] that was inconsistent with the current research. Because of different populations, we cannot generalize findings to other contexts.

Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for increased risk of NAFLD development as a result of abdominal fat or VF. One mechanism explains that the fatty tissue itself releases a large amount of FFA into the bloodstream. Related research presented evidence of FFA contribution from 5 to 10% released from VF in people with normal BMI, which increased to 30% in people with higher VF [40]. This high amount of FFA in liver cells can cause intracellular inflammation, insulin resistance, and hepatocyte steatosis elevation in the liver [41,42]. Furthermore, FFA released from VF can induce inflammation in hepatocytes by stimulating the nuclear factor (NF)-kB pathway and activating Kupffer cells (KC) [43], which can contribute to liver disease progression through raising diacylglycerol (DAG) [44]. Therefore, weight loss [45] or more specifically reduction of VF has been suggested as the first line of treatment for NAFLD, and such patients can be greatly improved by reducing VF [46].

Besides, VF is a source of several cytokines secreted from an adipose tissue called adipokines [47], which plays an important role in the pathogenesis of NAFLD [5]. One of the most important adipokines is the leptin hormone, which is impeded by leptin resistance in these conditions despite its elevated levels both in obesity and in NAFLD and NASH [48]. A major function of leptin is to regulate consumed energy and received energy, and prevent the accumulation of fats in non-adipose tissues such as the liver, and in hepatic insulin resistance indirectly plays a role in preventing liver fibrosis [49,50]. Other adipokines such as adiponectin [51], resistin [52], and visfatin [53] are also involved in NAFLD.

In addition to the aforementioned, another mechanism suggests that hypertrophic adipocytes induce the release of chemokines in VF. These substances, in turn, lead to the accumulation of lipids in VF and ultimately induce low-grade inflammation in this tissue, which can also be an independent factor in the prediction of NAFLD [29,31].

Limitations

There were some limitations to the present study. First, due to a cross-sectional study, causal relationships could not be derived. Second, since body composition varies across geographic regions, it may not be possible to generalize it to other populations. The present study did not investigate the association between food and beverage consumption with fatty liver development, which may be an important factor in future studies as dietary habits vary in populations. Besides, measuring inflammatory cytokines or blood cell contents could help strengthen the study, but due to financial constraints, we did not examine these items, which requires further studies for more precise results.

Strengths

The main strength of this study is its relatively larger population size. Besides, a considerable number of NAFLD-related variables enabled us to more closely scrutinize our main variables. Finally, the application of the FibroScan™ device as an established method for the study of NAFLD [20] and the use of the DXA scan as a standard method for estimating body composition [22,23] can further validate our study.

Conclusion

In summary, our research investigates the relationship between NAFLD with body composition in an Iranian population. It should be noted that based on a literature review, this study is one of the few studies in which both adipose and non-adipose tissues of different organs were separately compared with the fatty liver. According to our observations, there is an elevated risk of NAFLD development if the total fat in men and women exceeds 26 and 32 percent, respectively, which had maximum sensitivity for detecting the NAFLD. Another finding was that the likelihood of NAFLD development rose significantly with thicker abdominal fat by more than 21% in women and 13% in men. As a result, health planners and policymakers can consider this to prevent the development and progression of fatty liver in society. Finally, a longitudinal study is needed to test the ability of abdominal and total fat to predict NAFLD.

Demographic and basic information of the male participants in the group without NAFLD and NAFLD patients.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Demographic and basic information of the female participants in the group without NAFLD and NAFLD patients.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-34964

Assessment of the association between body composition and risk of Non-alcoholic fatty liver

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reza Homayounfar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  The study has merit.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.Moreover, please report whether sample size calculations were performed.

4.We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

5.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the current manuscript, Mohammad et al. aimed to study the association between body composition and risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) development. The authors recruited 2160 patient samples from the nutrition clinics between 2016 and 2017. To determine NAFLD, they used FiroScanTM to determine the controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) score which has been used to define steatosis grade. The body composition was examined by using the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) technique. It was found that fat-free tissue is negatively correlated with NAFLD. Besides, percentages of fat tissue in different body compositions are highly correlated with the risk of NAFLD. Overall, the current study has some clinical importance in guiding the application of fat contents in body composition for the prediction of NAFLD development. However, several issues identified in this manuscript should be further clarified by the authors.

1. The manuscript should be proofread by professional editing service.

2. Table 2 is confused. The authors may consider separating the results into 2 tables including one in males and another one in females.

3. Based on your interpretation, the female would have a high risk of developing NAFLD, if they have total fat and abdominal fat more than 32.23% and 21.42%, respectively. Male would have a high risk of developing NAFLD, if they have total fat and abdominal fat more than 26.73% and 13.76%, respectively. It seems males have a high incidence of developing NAFLD since they require low content of body fat composition to develop NAFLD. In animal studies, it is common that scientists use male mice to study NAFLD because male mice develop NAFLD easily. Could you discuss this aspect in detail in your discussion?

4. Did you check inflammatory cytokines or blood cell contents in your study? It will be interesting to validate if NAFLD patients have a low level of inflammation since adipokines have been linked to inflammation.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Ariya et al. seek the association between body composition with risk of NAFLD. The design and procedures of this study sound reasonable and I have no major comments or criticisms for this manuscript. It would be easier for readers to understand if the authors show ROC curves in figures, not Table 3, with p values. Table 2 is confusing and misleading. It looks like the authors show correlation between male and female (e.g., correlation between male left arm fat and female right arm fat), which does not make sense. I think data Table 1 show combined data of male and female, and the authors want to show data for both genders separately. If so, Table 1 is enough to show without Table 2, and if the authors really need to show male and female data separately, format of tables should be same as Table 1, not combined like current Table 2.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 Feb 2021

Response to reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers

We highly appreciate for your detailed and valuable comments on our manuscript. The suggestions were quite helpful for us and we incorporated them in the revised paper. We had referred to literatures and papers and reconstructed the paper to improve the quality of our manuscript. It is important to note that almost all recommendations were corrected and accordingly, we hope these changes could be acceptable to dear editor and respectful reviewers. Our responses to your comments are as follow:

Reviewer 1

1. The manuscript should be proofread by professional editing service.

• The manuscript was reviewed by two experts and we try to correct all grammatical errors. Also certificate for correcting grammatical mistake have sent with manuscript.

2. Table 2 is confused. The authors may consider separating the results into 2 tables including one in males and another one in females.

• Because of the beneficial recommendation of reviewers, table 2 reanalysed with the sex-separated and this analysis was performed in tables 2 and 3.

3. Based on your interpretation, the female would have a high risk of developing NAFLD, if they have total fat and abdominal fat more than 32.23% and 21.42%, respectively. Male would have a high risk of developing NAFLD, if they have total fat and abdominal fat more than 26.73% and 13.76%, respectively. It seems males have a high incidence of developing NAFLD since they require low content of body fat composition to develop NAFLD. In animal studies, it is common that scientists use male mice to study NAFLD because male mice develop NAFLD easily. Could you discuss this aspect in detail in your discussion?

• While thanking the reviewers for pointing out this important point, the following sentence was added to the discussion: "Notably, percentage of total fat in women and men of the same age is remarkably different. In fact, total fat is divided into “essential” and “storage" fats. Essential fat has been defined as the fundamental fat for normal physiologic functioning which consists of around 3% and 12% total body of males and females, respectively. On the other hand, storage fat is considered an energy reserve which is expendable and stored in adipose tissue. Thus, the average total fat of an individual (essential fat plus storage fat) in men and women is estimated to be 18-24 percent and 25-31 percent, respectively. Since the percentage of total fat in women is higher than men due to their physiological condition, the amount of total fat affected in diseases such as NAFLD should typically be higher in them than in males. Similarly, in men, the lower amount of total and abdominal fat affects the development of fatty liver, which does not necessarily mean that they develop NAFLD easily."

4. Did you check inflammatory cytokines or blood cell contents in your study? It will be interesting to validate if NAFLD patients have a low level of inflammation since adipokines have been linked to inflammation.

• We so appreciate for pointing out this point, but in the present study, these tests were not performed due to financial constraints. But this issue was mentioned in the limitations for future studies.

Reviewer 2

� In this study, Ariya et al. seek the association between body composition with risk of NAFLD. The design and procedures of this study sound reasonable and I have no major comments or criticisms for this manuscript. It would be easier for readers to understand if the authors show ROC curves in figures, not Table 3, with p values. Table 2 is confusing and misleading. It looks like the authors show correlation between male and female (e.g., correlation between male left arm fat and female right arm fat), which does not make sense. I think data Table 1 show combined data of male and female, and the authors want to show data for both genders separately. If so, Table 1 is enough to show without Table 2, and if the authors really need to show male and female data separately, format of tables should be same as Table 1, not combined like current Table 2.

• We appreciate your valuable comments. Table 3 (now shown as Table 4 in the manuscript) and Figure 1 are reported separately, so it was not possible to display all variables such as "Cut-off Point" in Figure 1. Again, if the reviewer's opinion is to delete this table, we will sincerely delete this table. Besides, it is noteworthy mentioning because of the beneficial recommendation of reviewers, table 2 reanalyzed with the sex-separated and this analysis was performed in tables 2 and 3.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-34964R1

Assessment of the association between body composition and risk of Non-alcoholic fatty liver

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Reza Homayounfar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: As gender difference has been discussed in NAFLD development, the authors may want to include two tables showing data as the table 1 displayed.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Ariya et al. seek the association between body composition with risk of NAFLD. I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Mar 2021

Response to reviewers

Dear Editor and Reviewers

On behalf of all the authors of the article, I would like to thank the respected editors and reviewers who considered our article worthy of publication in the prestigious journal of Plos ONE and made suggestions to improve the article. We did our best to correct the recommendations and we hope that the article in its current form will acceptable to dear editor and the respected reviewers.

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: As gender difference has been discussed in NAFLD development, the authors may want to include two tables showing data as the table 1 displayed.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Ariya et al. seek the association between body composition with risk of NAFLD. I have no further comments.

Considering that changing table number one would cause a significant change in the results section of the article, we decided to make this suggestion of the esteemed reviewer in the form of supplementary tables number one and two.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Mar 2021

Assessment of the association between body composition and risk of Non-alcoholic fatty liver

PONE-D-20-34964R2

Dear Dr. Reza Homayounfar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for your response. It is okay to have the table published as supplementary information. It is acceptable.

Reviewer #2: In this study, Ariya et al. seek the association between body composition with risk of NAFLD. I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-34964R2

Assessment of the association between body composition and risk of Non-alcoholic fatty liver

Dear Dr. Homayounfar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE