Skip to main content

Table 4 Associations between serum PFAS concentrations and six different MRI and DXA body fat measures

From: Associations between exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances and body fat evaluated by DXA and MRI in 109 adolescent boys

  MRI
β (95% CI) 		DXA
β (95% CI)
Log abdominal fat % Log visceral fat % Log total fat % Log android fat % Log gynoid fat % Log android/gynoid ratio Total fat % SDS
Log PFOA
 Unadjusted 0.04 (-0.13, 0.20) 0.04 (-0.08–0.15) 0.09 (-0.12, 0.31) 0.08 (-0.19, 0.35) 0.12 (-0.05, 0.28) -0.37 (-0. 18, 0.10) 0.47 (-0.60, 1.53)
 Adjusted 0.07 (-0.12, 0.25) 0.002 (-0.13–0.13) 0.09 (-0.15, 0.33) 0.08 (-0.22, 0.39) 0.11 (-0.08, 0.30) -0.02 (-0.18, 0.13) 0.49 (-0.71, 1.69)
Log PFOS
 Unadjusted -0.20 (-0.37, -0.04)* -0.03 (-0.14–0.09) -0.20 (-0.42, 0.02) -0.34 (-0.61, -0.07)* -0.09 (-0.27, 0.08) -0.24 (-0.38, -0.11)* -1.10 (-2.18, -0.02)*
 Adjusted -0.18 (-0.37, -0.003)* -0.03 (-0.16–0.09) -0.21 (-0.44, 0.02) -0.34 (-0.64, -0.05)* -0.13 (-0.31, 0.05) -0.21 (-0.36, -0.07)* -1.12 (-2.28, 0.04)
Log PFHxS
 Unadjusted 0.001 (-0.16, 0.16) 0.02 (-0.10–0.13) 0.05 (-0.15, 0.26) 0.03 (-0.24, 0.29) 0.08 (-0.08, 0.24) -0.06 (-0.20, 0.08) 0.18 (-0.86, 1.21)
 Adjusted 0.03 (-0.15, 0.20) 0.02 (-0.11–0.14) 0.01 (-0.22, 0.23) -0.01 (-0.30, 0.28) 0.01 (-0.16, 0.19) -0.02 (-0.17, 0.13) -0.04 (-1.17, 1.10)
Log PFNA
 Unadjusted -0.06 (-0.22, 0.01) -0.01 (-0.13–0.10) 0.01 (-0.21, 0.22) -0.07 (-0.34, 0.20) 0.06 (-0.11, 0.22) -0.12 (-0.26, 0.02) -0.01 (-1.08, 1.06)
 Adjusted -0.04 (-0.22, 0.14) -0.05 (-0.17–0.08) 0.03 (-0.21, 0.26) -0.05 (-0.35, 0.25) 0.07 (-0.11, 0.25) -0.12 (-0.27, 0.03) 0.12 (-1.05, 1.29)
Log PFDA
 Unadjusted -0.19 (-0.37, -0.01)* -0.05 (-0.18–0.07) -0.11 (-0.35, 0.12) -0.26 (-0.55, 0.04) -0.01 (-0.20, 0.17) -0.25 (-0.4, -0.09)* -0.72 (-1.90, 0.47)
 Adjusted -0.17 (-0.37, 0.04) -0.09 (-0.23–0.05) -0.12 (-0.38, 0.15) -0.25 (-0.58, 0.08) -0.04 (-0.24, 0.16) -0.21 (-0.37, -0.05)* -0.70 (-2.00, 0.60)
  1. Associations were tested in multiple linear regression models, and the table shows the resulting effect estimates (β). For fat percentages and android/gynoid ratio, these express the change in the log value of these five outcomes per log unit increase in serum PFAS concentration. Tanner stage was included as a covariate in the adjusted models
  2. PFAS Perfluoroalkyl substances, MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging, DXA Dual X-ray absorptiometry, CI Confidence interval, PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid, PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid, SDS standard deviation score
  3. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant and highlighted with an asterisk (*)
  4. Explanation on how to interpret effect estimates using an example PFOA vs. total fat percentage by DXA: When PFOA serum concentration increases by a factor 10, the median value of total fat percentage increases by 23% (100.09 = 1.23)
Back to article page

Environmental Health

ISSN: 1476-069X