| Literature DB >> 29216229 |
Parisa Amiri1, Sara Jalali-Farahani1,2, Mehrdad Karimi3,1, Reza Taherian1,2, Sara Kazempour-Ardebili4, Firoozeh Hosseini-Esfahani5, Parvin Mirmiran5, Fereidoun Azizi4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine associations of sex-specific related factors with pre-diabetes in Tehranian non-diabetic adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29216229 PMCID: PMC5720750 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Measurement model of poor dietary pattern: A CFA model based on 50% random sample data (n = 2782).
Fit indices of poor diet CFA model: χ2 = 34.43, DF = 20, χ2/DF = 1.72, RMSEA = 0.016, SRMR = 0.013, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.98. The standardized factor loadings (Z-statistics for testing adequacy of explained variance of food groups by poor diet construct, squared multiple correlation of each food group predicted by construct) are reported on pathways.
Fig 2The structural model: Testing the association of socio-behavioral and biochemical factors with pre-diabetes.
Characteristics of study participants according to the presence of pre-diabetes by genders.
| Men (n = 2486) | P value | Women (n = 3082) | P value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal glucose | 95% CI | Pre-diabetic | 95% CI | Normal glucose | 95% CI | Pre-diabetic | 95% CI | |||
| 39.17±13.30 | - | 47.55±13.51 | - | <0.001 | 37.52±11.79 | - | 47.94±12.96 | - | <0.001 | |
| Elementary | 325(18.0) | 16.3–19.8 | 188(27.7) | 24.4–31.1 | <0.001 | 493(20.1) | 18.6–21.8 | 284(44.9) | 41.0–48.8 | <0.001 |
| Secondary | 834(46.2) | 43.9–48.5 | 315(46.3) | 42.6–50.1 | 1177(48.1) | 46.1–50.0 | 254(40.1) | 36.4–44.0 | ||
| Undergraduate degree | 552(30.5) | 28.5–32.7 | 141(20.7) | 17.8–23.9 | 718(29.3) | 27.5–31.1 | 86(13.6) | 11.1–16.4 | ||
| Postgraduate degree | 95(5.3) | 4.3–6.4 | 36(5.3) | 3.8–7.2 | 61(2.5) | 1.9–3.2 | 9(1.4) | 0.7–2.6 | ||
| Single | 515(28.5) | 26.5–30.6 | 76(11.2) | 9.0–13.7 | <0.001 | 493(20.1) | 18.6–21.8 | 36(5.7) | 4.1–7.7 | <0.001 |
| Married | 1291(71.5) | 69.4–73.5 | 604(88.8) | 86.3–91.0 | 1956(79.9) | 78.2–81.4 | 597(94.3) | 92.3–95.9 | ||
| Unemployed | 367(20.3) | 18.5–22.2 | 166(24.4) | 21.3–27.7 | <0.05 | 1905(77.8) | 76.1–79.4 | 563(88.9) | 86.3–91.2 | <0.001 |
| Employed | 1439(79.7) | 77.8–81.5 | 514(75.6) | 72.3–78.7 | 544(22.2) | 20.6–23.9 | 70(11.1) | 8.8–13.7 | ||
| No | 1662(92.0) | 90.7–93.2 | 614(90.3) | 87.9–92.3 | 0.19 | 2191(89.5) | 88.2–90.6 | 548(86.6) | 83.8–89.1 | <0.05 |
| Yes | 144(8.0) | 6.8–9.3 | 66(9.7) | 7.7–12.1 | 258(10.5) | 9.4–11.8 | 85(13.4) | 10.9–16.2 | ||
| <18.5 | 29(1.6) | 1.1–2.3 | 1(0.1) | 0.0–0.7 | <0.001 | 57(2.3) | 1.8–3.0 | 1(0.2) | 0.0–0.7 | <0.001 |
| 18.5–24.9 | 654(36.2) | 34.0–38.4 | 137(20.1) | 17.3–23.3 | 859(35.1) | 33.2–37.0 | 89(14.1) | 11.5–16.9 | ||
| 25–29.9 | 818(45.3) | 43.0–47.6 | 342(50.4) | 46.5–54.0 | 961(39.2) | 37.3–41.2 | 241(38.1) | 34.4–41.9 | ||
| ≥30 | 305(16.9) | 15.2–18.7 | 200(29.4) | 26.1–32.9 | 572(23.4) | 21.7–25.1 | 302(47.7) | 43.8–51.6 | ||
| <1.69 | 1128(62.5) | 60.2–64.7 | 321(47.2) | 43.5–51.0 | <0.001 | 1966(80.3) | 78.7–81.8 | 3331(52.6) | 48.7–56.5 | <0.001 |
| ≥1.69 | 678(37.5) | 35.3–39.8 | 359(52.8) | 49.0–56.5 | 483(19.7) | 18.2–21.3 | 300(47.4) | 43.5–51.3 | ||
| No | 1277(70.7) | 68.6–72.8 | 396(58.2) | 54.5–61.9 | <0.001 | 2061(84.2) | 82.7–85.6 | 403(63.7) | 59.9–67.3 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 529(29.3) | 27.2–31.4 | 284(41.8) | 38.1–45.5 | 388(15.8) | 14.4–17.3 | 230(36.3) | 32.7–40.1 | ||
| No | 1079(59.7) | 57.5–62.0 | 346(50.9) | 47.1–54.6 | <0.001 | 2129(86.9) | 85.6–88.2 | 460(72.7) | 69.1–76.0 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 727(40.3) | 38.0–42.5 | 334(49.1) | 45.4–52.9 | 320(13.1) | 11.8–14.4 | 173(27.3) | 24.0–30.9 | ||
| No | 779(43.1%) | 40.9–45.4 | 337(49.6%) | 45.8–53.3 | <0.01 | 1199(49%) | 47.0–50.9 | 330(52.1%) | 48.2–56.0 | 0.17 |
| Q1 | 250(13.8%) | 12.3–15.5 | 100(14.7%) | 12.2–17.5 | 308(12.6%) | 11.3–13.9 | 70(11.1%) | 8.8–13.7 | ||
| Q2 | 267(14.8%) | 13.2–16.5 | 86(12.6%) | 10.3–15.3 | 334(13.6%) | 12.3–15.0 | 83(13.1%) | 10.7–15.9 | ||
| Q3 | 226(12.5%) | 11.0–14.1 | 84(12.4%) | 10.0–15.0 | 341(13.9%) | 12.6–15.3 | 98(15.5%) | 12.8–18.5 | ||
| Q4 | 284(15.7%) | 14.1–17.5 | 73(10.7%) | 8.6–13.2 | 267(10.9%) | 9.7–12.2 | 52(8.2%) | 6.3–10.5 | ||
*Confidence interval for proportions calculated using Jeffrys method.
**Low HDL-C (female<1.29 and male <1.06)
Factor loadings for healthy and poor diet extracted using Exploratory Factor Analysis.
| Healthy Diet | Poor diet | |
|---|---|---|
| Other vegetables | 0.76 | |
| Yellow and red vegetables | 0.69 | |
| Green vegetables | 0.64 | |
| Fruits | 0.52 | |
| Refined grains | -0.48 | 0.22 |
| Rice and Pasta | -0.45 | |
| Liquid oil | 0.31 | |
| Low fat | 0.29 | |
| Legumes | 0.25 | |
| Fish and poultry | 0.24 | 0.22 |
| Fast foods | 0.65 | |
| Soft drinks | -0.24 | 0.61 |
| Salty snacks | 0.47 | |
| Organ meats | 0.46 | |
| Fruit juice | 0.43 | |
| Sugar | 0.41 | |
| Solid oil | -0.23 | 0.35 |
| Eggs | 0.34 | |
| Red meat | 0.34 | |
| Whole grains | -0.32 | |
| High fat | 0.27 | |
| Potatoes | 0.20 | |
| Tea and Coffee |
Goodness of fit indices for every pair of nested models and chi-square statistics for comparing the models.
| Model | DF | χ2 | χ2 / DF | RMSEA | SRMR | CFI | GFI | NFI | IFI | (Δχ2, DF) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 229 | 981.65 | 4.20 | 0.024 | 0.029 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.94 | Assuming to be correct | |
| 243 | 1021.42 | 4.28 | 0.024 | 0.030 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 39.77 | |
| 284 | 1414.91 | 4.98 | 0.027 | 0.040 | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 433.26 | |
| 299 | 2331.61 | 7.80 | 0.035 | 0.047 | 0.85 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 1349.96 | |
| 346 | 300.62 | 8.67 | 0.075 | 0.046 | 0.80 | 0.93 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 2019.97 |
† Chi-square test is used to test the null hypothesis that the more constrained model is correct under the assumption that the less constrained model is correct. The model with all parameters differed in two genders was significantly better than others which had some constraints on the parameters.
* P < 0.001
χ2: Chi-Square value, DF: Degrees of Freedom, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, NFI: Normed Fit Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, IFI: Incremental Fit Index, GFI: Goodness of Fit Index.
Fig 3The final structural model after testing the associations of socio-behavioral and biochemical factors with pre-diabetes in (A) Men and (B) Women.
Fit indices were acceptable for both SEM models of men (χ2 = 494.87, DF = 114, χ2/DF = 4.34, RMSEA = 0.037, SRMR = 0.029, GFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.92) and women (χ2 = 480.41, DF = 114, χ2/DF = 4.21, RMSEA = 0.032, SRMR = 0.026, GFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.94).
Sex-specific associations between socio-behavioral and biochemical factors and pre-diabetes.
| Predictor | Response | Men | Women | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | C.R | Coefficient | C.R | C.R | ||
| Age (years) | -0.039 | -1.44 | -0.007 | -0.31 | 0.89 | |
| Employment | -0.123 | -5.79 | -0.068 | -3.42 | 1.93 | |
| Marital Status | -0.163 | -6.47 | -0.043 | -2.13 | 3.51 | |
| Education | 0.083 | 4.10 | 0.071 | 3.21 | -0.35 | |
| Family history of diabetes | 0.028 | 1.46 | 0.000 | 0.40 | -1.43 | |
| Age (years) | -0.506 | -7.17 | -0.457 | -5.80 | 1.00 | |
| Employment | 0.052 | 2.28 | 0.028 | 1.42 | -1.02 | |
| Marital Status | 0.077 | 2.80 | 0.076 | 3.33 | -0.21 | |
| Education | 0.056 | 2.58 | 0.009 | 0.40 | -1.70 | |
| Family history of diabetes | -0.012 | -0.58 | 0.022 | 1.24 | 1.15 | |
| Physical Activity | -0.056 | -2.34 | 0.010 | 0.53 | 2.24 | |
| Age (years) | -0.020 | -0.65 | -0.118 | -4.98 | -2.11 | |
| Employment | 0.010 | 0.45 | 0.025 | 1.25 | 0.33 | |
| Marital Status | -0.117 | -4.46 | -0.029 | -1.47 | 2.97 | |
| Education | -0.026 | -1.23 | 0.039 | 1.75 | 2.06 | |
| Physical Activity | 0.018 | 0.85 | 0.016 | 0.88 | -0.22 | |
| Poor diet | -0.022 | -0.85 | -0.008 | -0.38 | 0.46 | |
| Age (years) | -0.007 | -0.24 | 0.249 | 11.78 | 7.82 | |
| Employment | 0.072 | 3.32 | -0.009 | -0.49 | -2.76 | |
| Marital Status | 0.203 | 7.89 | 0.207 | 11.59 | 1.60 | |
| Education | -0.060 | -2.91 | -0.123 | -6.21 | -2.69 | |
| Physical Activity | 0.022 | 1.10 | 0.025 | 1.57 | 0.24 | |
| Poor diet | 0.081 | 2.84 | -0.025 | -1.30 | -2.96 | |
| Age (years) | 0.100 | 3.33 | 0.292 | 13.08 | 4.96 | |
| Employment | 0.042 | 1.91 | -0.047 | -2.49 | -3.04 | |
| Marital Status | 0.132 | 5.11 | 0.045 | 2.36 | -2.74 | |
| Education | 0.048 | 2.31 | -0.019 | -0.91 | -2.30 | |
| Physical Activity | -0.039 | -1.96 | -0.033 | -1.97 | 0.35 | |
| Poor diet | 0.021 | 0.82 | -0.044 | -2.06 | -1.99 | |
| Age (years) | 0.274 | 9.26 | 0.425 | 19.79 | 3.49 | |
| Employment | 0.014 | 0.67 | -0.012 | -0.66 | -0.93 | |
| Marital Status | 0.022 | 0.86 | -0.067 | -3.66 | -2.78 | |
| Education | -0.004 | -0.19 | -0.061 | -3.03 | -1.88 | |
| Physical Activity | 0.034 | 1.71 | -0.003 | -0.19 | -1.49 | |
| Poor diet | 0.022 | 0.88 | -0.011 | -0.57 | -1.04 | |
| Age (years) | 0.268 | 9.03 | 0.233 | 9.70 | -0.95 | |
| Employment | -0.002 | -0.10 | -0.022 | -1.17 | -0.66 | |
| Marital Status | -0.016 | -0.63 | -0.023 | -1.19 | -0.23 | |
| Education | -0.029 | -1.43 | -0.049 | -2.37 | -0.66 | |
| Family history of diabetes | 0.036 | 1.91 | 0.030 | 1.78 | -0.55 | |
| HDL (mg/dl) | -0.014 | -0.67 | -0.056 | -3.15* | -1.85 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.151 | 7.31 | 0.093 | 4.86 | -2.85 | |
| TG(mg/dl) | 0.055 | 2.58 | 0.115 | 5.97 | 2.19 | |
| Hypertension | 0.001 | 0.07 | 0.042 | 2.22 | 1.5 | |
| Physical Activity | -0.029 | -1.48 | -0.006 | -0.37 | 0.93 | |
| Poor diet | 0.037 | 1.44 | 0.051 | 2.33 | 0.57 | |
* P < 0.05,
** P < 0.01,
# Critical Ratio for Difference between Men and Women,
¥ Correlation Coefficient.