What if a quick check of your waistline could give a hint about your stroke risk? A recent study looked at just that, using a measure called the Body Roundness Index (BRI), which is based on your waist and height. Researchers examined nearly 7,000 adults in a community screening program in China. They found that people with a higher BRI were more likely to report a prior stroke diagnosis from a doctor. The study suggests BRI might add some useful information when looking at a person's overall health picture for community screening. But there are important things to keep in mind. This was a single snapshot in time—it can't tell us if a high BRI causes stroke or if it's just associated. The stroke history was self-reported, not confirmed by medical records. And importantly, the BRI measurement by itself was only modestly helpful in identifying people with stroke history. More research, especially studies that follow people forward in time, is needed to see if this measure is truly useful for doctors and patients.
High body roundness index associated with higher odds of prevalent stroke in Chinese adultsCould a simple waist measurement help spot stroke risk in your community?
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This cross-sectional, observational study analyzed data from 6,858 adults in a community-based screening sample from the ChinaHEART cohort branch. The study examined the association between body roundness index (BRI), a waist-height-derived anthropometric indicator, and prevalent stroke. Participants were categorized as having low BRI (<4.6) or high BRI (≥4.6), with the primary outcome being self-reported physician-diagnosed stroke.
Among all participants, 192 (2.8%) reported a prior stroke. In a fully adjusted multivariable model, high BRI was associated with higher odds of prevalent stroke (OR 1.766, 95% CI 1.279–2.438). The analysis identified an optimal BRI cutoff of 4.597 (95% CI 4.149–4.798) for discriminating stroke status. However, BRI alone showed limited discrimination for prevalent stroke, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.584. The fully adjusted model, which included BRI and other variables, achieved higher discrimination (AUC 0.740).
Safety and tolerability data were not reported. Key limitations stem from the cross-sectional design, which cannot establish causality or temporal sequence. The stroke outcome was based on self-report rather than validated medical records, which may introduce misclassification. The study population was from a specific community screening program in China, limiting generalizability. The authors note BRI may offer complementary discriminatory information for community screening or triage, but prospective studies with validated outcomes are warranted to confirm any clinical utility.