| Literature DB >> 27579785 |
Ming-Feng Xia1,2, Hannele Yki-Järvinen3,4, Hua Bian1,2, Huan-Dong Lin1,2, Hong-Mei Yan1,2, Xin-Xia Chang1,2, You Zhou3,4, Xin Gao1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Presence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) can predict risks for diabetes, cardiovascular disease and advanced liver disease in the general population. We aimed to establish a non-invasive score for prediction of NAFLD in Han Chinese, the largest ethnic group in the world, and detect whether ethnicity influences the accuracy of such a score.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27579785 PMCID: PMC5007035 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of the Chinese population and the Finnish external validation group.
| Chinese, all | Chinese, estimation group | Chinese, internal validation group | Finnish, external validation group | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimation vs Validation group | All Chinese vs Finnish group | |||||
| No.(% men) | 3548(35.2) | 2365(34.8) | 1183(35.9) | 572(43.7) | 0.265 | <0.001 |
| Age (years) | 63.3±9.8 | 63.1±9.8 | 63.5±10.0 | 45.0±8.0 | 0.239 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.2±3.4 | 24.2±3.4 | 24.2±3.3 | 34.9±8.8 | 0.523 | <0.001 |
| Waist (cm) | 83.1±9.5 | 83.1±9.5 | 83.3±9.5 | 111.1±18.5 | 0.475 | <0.001 |
| Type 2 diabetes (%) | 15.7 | 15.0 | 17.1 | 25.9 | 0.076 | <0.001 |
| Metabolic syndrome (%) | 27.7 | 27.9 | 27.3 | 64.0 | 0.338 | <0.001 |
| Liver fat (%) | 7.5±7.1 | 7.5±7.2 | 7.3±6.9 | 9.4±9.6 | 0.358 | <0.001 |
| NAFLD (%) | 29.5 | 30.0 | 28.5 | 51.0 | 0.228 | <0.001 |
| fS-glucose (mmol/L) | 5.49±1.28 | 5.48±1.29 | 5.50±1.27 | 6.33±2.64 | 0.775 | <0.001 |
| fS-triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.4(1.0–2.0) | 1.4(1.0–2.0) | 1.4(1.0–2.0) | 1.4(1.0–1.9) | 0.979 | 0.865 |
| fS-HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.44±0.37 | 1.44±0.38 | 1.43±0.36 | 1.29±0.41 | 0.168 | <0.001 |
| fS-LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.91±0.79 | 2.91±0.79 | 2.91±0.80 | 2.84±0.93 | 0.901 | 0.055 |
| fS-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.10±0.93 | 5.10±0.93 | 5.09±0.94 | 4.84±1.10 | 0.700 | <0.001 |
| Systolic BP (mmHg) | 135±19 | 135±19 | 135±19 | 134±17 | 0.841 | 0.236 |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg) | 76±10 | 76±10 | 76±10 | 84±11 | 0.265 | <0.001 |
| fS-insulin (mU/L) | 9.56±7.20 | 9.51±6.96 | 9.66±7.65 | 12.28±8.37 | 0.579 | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 16(12–21) | 16(12–21) | 16(12–22) | 33(23–52) | 0.431 | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 20(17–24) | 20(17–24) | 20(17–24) | 30(24–40) | 0.768 | <0.001 |
| GGT (U/L) | 22(17–32) | 22(17–32) | 22(17–33) | 32(20–58) | 0.460 | <0.001 |
| AST/ALT ratio | 1.3(1.0–1.6) | 1.3(1.0–1.6) | 1.3(1.0–1.6) | 0.9(0.7–1.1) | 0.557 | <0.001 |
Data are in n (%), means ± SD or median (25th-75th percentile), as appropriate.
Univariate logistic regression showing odds ratios and 95%CI for NAFLD in the Chinese and Finns.
| All subjects (N = 3548) OR (95%CI) | P value | Finns (N = 572) OR (95%CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male) | 0.971(0.831–1.134) | 0.708 | 1.383(0.993–1.927) | 0.055 |
| Age (years) | 0.989(0.981–0.997) | 0.005 | 1.024(1.011–1.038) | 0.009 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 1.306(1.270–1.342) | <0.001 | 1.055(1.025–1.087) | <0.001 |
| Waist (cm) | 1.087(1.077–1.097) | <0.001 | 1.017(1.007–1.026) | 0.001 |
| Type 2 diabetes (%) | 1.647(1.494–1.815) | <0.001 | 1.864(1.501–2.313) | <0.001 |
| Metabolic syndrome (%) | 3.674(3.123–4.323) | <0.001 | 4.364(2.790–6.825) | <0.001 |
| fS-Glucose (mmol/L) | 1.375(1.287–1.469) | <0.001 | 1.865(1.500–2.320) | <0.001 |
| fS-triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.691(1.558–1.835) | <0.001 | 1.967(1.491–2.594) | <0.001 |
| fS-HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 0.266(0.212–0.333) | <0.001 | 0.167(0.090–0.311) | <0.001 |
| fS-LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.069(0.974–1.174) | 0.159 | 1.248(0.988–1.576) | 0.063 |
| fS-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.158(1.070–1.254) | 0.165 | 1.120(0.916–1.369) | 0.269 |
| Systolic BP (mmHg) | 1.011(1.007–1.015) | <0.001 | 1.017(1.004–1.031) | 0.011 |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg) | 1.037(1.029–1.045) | <0.001 | 1.040(1.018–1.063) | <0.001 |
| fS-insulin (mU/L) | 1.147(1.129–1.166) | <0.001 | 1.117(1.076–1.159) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 1.040(1.033–1.048) | <0.001 | 1.033(1.023–1.044) | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 1.024(1.014–1.034) | <0.001 | 1.051(1.033–1.068) | <0.001 |
| GGT (U/L) | 1.004(1.002–1.007) | 0.001 | 1.003(1.000–1.005) | 0.041 |
| AST/ALT ratio | 0.233(0.190–0.285) | <0.001 | 0.173(0.092–0.324) | <0.001 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Multivariate logistic regression model to predict NAFLD in Chinese estimation group.
| B | Standard error | P value | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolic syndrome | 0.303 | 0.130 | 0.020 | 1.354(1.048–1.748) |
| Type 2 Diabetes | 0.157 | 0.073 | 0.032 | 1.170(1.013–1.351) |
| fS-insulin (mU/L) | 0.078 | 0.012 | <0.001 | 1.082(1.057–1.107) |
| AST/ALT | -0.763 | 0.132 | <0.001 | 0.466(0.360–0.604) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.168 | 0.021 | <0.001 | 1.183(1.135–1.233) |
| Constant | -4.632 |
The variables entered the multivariate regression model include: BMI, waist circumference, T2DM, MetS, TG, HDL-c, TC, SBP, Insulin, ALT, AST, AST/ALT
Fig 1ROC-curves of the Chinese NAFLD score to predict NAFLD in the estimation group, the internal Chinese validation group and the Finnish external validation group.
In the estimation group, AUROC = 0.79 (0.77, 0.81),cut-off = -0.79, Specificity = 0.72, Sensitivity = 0.71. In the internal Chinese validation group, AUROC = 0.76 (0.73, 0.78), cut-off = -0.79, Specificity = 0.71, Sensitivity = 0.69. In the Finnish external validation group, AUROC = 0.74 (0.69, 0.80), cut-off = 0.68, Specificity = 0.62, Sensitivity = 0.79.
Diagnostic performance of noninvasive prediction scores.
| AUROC | Cut-off (“old”) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | % with NAFLD (“Old” cut-off) | Cut-off (“new”) | % with NAFLD (“New” cut off) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese | |||||||
| China NAFLD score | 0.78(0.76–0.79) | -0.79 | 70(67–73) | 73(71–75) | 42.7% | -0.79 | 42.7% |
| NAFLD liver fat score | 0.76(0.74–0.77) | -0.64 | 49(46–52) | 85(83–86) | 26.6% | -1.54 | 42.8% |
| Fatty liver index | 0.76(0.74–0.77) | 40 | 57(53–60) | 81(79–82) | 31.6% | 27.1 | 45.4% |
| Hepatic steatosis index | 0.77(0.75–0.78) | 33 | 68(65–71) | 71(70–73) | 41.9% | 32.5 | 44.7% |
| Finns | |||||||
| China NAFLD score | 0.74(0.69–0.80) | -0.79 | 98(95–99) | 23(17–30) | 87.7% | 0.68 | 59.0% |
| NAFLD liver fat score | 0.81(0.77–0.86) | -0.64 | 86(81–91) | 62(54–69) | 63.2% | -0.64 | 63.2% |
| Fatty liver index | 0.72(0.66–0.77) | 40 | 85(79–90) | 45(38–53) | 62.5% | 39 | 64.0% |
| Hepatic steatosis index | 0.73(0.67–0.78) | 33 | 97(94–99) | 18(13–24) | 89.7% | 40.2 | 61.6% |
Data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals.
***p<0.001 indicates the significance of comparing each score to the ‘China NAFLD score’ in Chinese and ‘NAFLD liver fat score’ in Finns.
Fig 2Relationships between liver fat (%), BMI (panel on the left) and waist circumference (panel on the right) in Chinese and Finns. There were no differences between the slopes of the regression lines relating BMI (P = 0.865) and waist circumference (P = 0.514) to 1H-MRS LFAT between the Chinese and Finns. The intercepts of the regression lines relating BMI (P<0.0001) and waist circumference (P<0.0001) to 1H-MRS LFAT were significantly higher in the Chinese than the Finns.