Predictive value of abdominal CT-based body composition parameters for early diabetic kidney disease risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective cohort study


Abstract

Background. Early identification of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains challenging due to limitations of conventional biomarkers. Body composition analysis using computed tomography (CT) may provide novel insights into DKD risk stratification.

Objective. To investigate the predictive value of abdominal CT-based body composition parameters as potential imaging biomarkers for early DKD risk in T2DM patients.

Methods. This retrospective cohort study enrolled 350 patients with T2DM from the Second Hospital of Ningbo between January 2020 and December 2024. Patients were stratified into the early DKD group (n = 171) and the T2DM control group without DKD (n = 179) based on the results of renal function assessment. Using Slice-O-Matic software, we measured area, index, and radiodensity of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue depots at the L3 vertebral level on abdominal CT images. Spearman correlation analysis evaluated associations between body composition parameters and renal function indicators. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified independent risk factors for the development of early DKD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to assess the predictive value of body composition parameters for early DKD.

Results. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed four independent predictors of early DKD. age (OR=1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P=0.023), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (OR=1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, P=0.007), renal sinus fat index (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78, P=0.003), and renal sinus fat density (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.72-0.83, P<0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that renal sinus fat density maintained significant associations with both the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (β=-1.61, P<0.001) and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (β=0.29, P=0.002) after adjusting for confounding variables. The combined clinical-body composition model (AUC = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87) and the body composition-only model (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.82) both demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to the clinical-only model (AUC = 0.66, 95% CI 0.61-0.72).

Conclusions. Reduced renal sinus fat density emerges as a novel independent predictor of early DKD in T2DM patients, demonstrating potential utility as an imaging biomarker for early identification and risk stratification. These findings support the integration of CT-based body composition analysis into comprehensive DKD screening strategies.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].