| Literature DB >> 35812496 |
Yang Zhou1,2, Xiangping Chai1,2, Tuo Guo1,2, Yuting Pu1,2, Mengping Zeng1,2, Aifang Zhong1,2, Guifang Yang1,2, Jiajia Cai3.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to distinguish the risk variables of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and to construct a prediction model of NAFLD in visceral fat obesity in Japanese adults.Entities:
Keywords: LASSO; nomogram; nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); obesity; prediction model; risk score
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812496 PMCID: PMC9259946 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.895045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Flow diagram of study design.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of study population in the derivation and validation cohorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of participants | 1,516 | 1,061 | 455 | |
| Age (years) | 45.05 ± 8.73 | 44.61 ± 8.72 | 46.07 ± 8.67 | 0.003 |
| Weight (kg) | 72.01 ± 13.43 | 71.93 ± 13.41 | 72.21 ± 13.48 | 0.709 |
| ALT (IU/L) | 20.00 (14.00, 31.00) | 20.00 (14.00, 31.00) | 20.00 (15.00, 31.50) | 0.989 |
| AST (IU/L) | 19.00 (15.00, 24.00) | 18.00 (15.00, 23.00) | 19.00 (15.50, 24.00) | 0.474 |
| GGT (IU/L) | 16.00 (12.00, 25.00) | 16.00 (12.00, 24.00) | 17.00 (13.00, 26.00) | 0.146 |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 50.49 ± 12.99 | 50.65 ± 13.10 | 50.13 ± 12.73 | 0.473 |
| TC (mg/dl) | 209.29 ± 33.71 | 208.02 ± 34.24 | 212.23 ± 32.27 | 0.026 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 85.00 (55.00, 127.00) | 84.00 (54.00, 122.00) | 86.00 (57.50,133.00) | 0.192 |
| HBA1C (%) | 5.32 ± 0.33 | 5.32 ± 0.34 | 5.33 ± 0.33 | 0.679 |
| FPG (mg/dl) | 94.93 ± 7.21 | 94.86 ± 7.23 | 95.08 ± 7.18 | 0.588 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 122.10 ± 15.73 | 121.87 ± 15.97 | 122.65 ± 15.15 | 0.378 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 76.12 ± 10.99 | 75.97 ± 11.21 | 76.49 ± 10.46 | 0.399 |
| <0.001 | ||||
| Male | 942 (62.16%) | 487 (45.90%) | 455 (100.00%) | |
| Female | 574 (37.84%) | 574 (54.10%) | 0 (0.00%) | |
|
| 0.262 | |||
| No | 773 (50.99%) | 551 (51.93%) | 222 (48.79%) | |
| Yes | 743 (49.01%) | 510 (48.07%) | 233 (51.21%) | |
| 0.015 | ||||
| No | 1,348 (88.92%) | 957 (90.20%) | 391 (85.93%) | |
| Yes | 168 (11.08%) | 104 (9.80%) | 64 (14.07%) | |
| 0.048 | ||||
| Never | 1,058 (69.79%) | 759 (71.54%) | 299 (65.71%) | |
| Past | 218 (14.38%) | 139 (13.10%) | 79 (17.36%) | |
| Current | 240 (15.83%) | 163 (15.36%) | 77 (16.92%) |
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for risk factors associated with fatty liver diseases in the training cohort.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.97 (0.96, 0.99) 0.0001 | |
| Male | Ref | |
| Female | 0.93 (0.73, 1.18) 0.5449 | |
| Weight (kg) | 1.10 (1.08, 1.11) <0.0001 | 1.06 (1.04, 1.08) <0.0001 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 1.03 (1.02, 1.04) <0.0001 | 0.97 (0.94, 0.99) 0.0046 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 1.06 (1.04, 1.07) <0.0001 | 1.05 (1.02, 1.09) 0.0041 |
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 0.96 (0.64, 1.44) 0.8378 | |
| Never | Ref | |
| Past | 2.06 (1.43, 2.98) 0.0001 | |
| Current | 3.54 (2.45, 5.11) <0.0001 | |
| HbA1c (%) | 3.17 (2.17, 4.61) <0.0001 | 4.98 (2.86, 8.68) <0.0001 |
| FPG (mg/dl) | 1.10 (1.08, 1.12) <0.0001 | |
| ALT (IU/L) | 1.09 (1.08, 1.11) <0.0001 | 1.08 (1.06, 1.11) <0.0001 |
| AST (IU/L) | 1.11 (1.09, 1.13) <0.0001 | 0.95 (0.91, 0.98) 0.0018 |
| GGT (IU/L) | 1.07 (1.06, 1.09) <0.0001 | |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 0.94 (0.92, 0.95) <0.0001 | |
| TC (mg/dl) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) 0.0004 | |
| TG (mg/dl) | 1.02 (1.01, 1.02) <0.0001 | 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) <0.0001 |
Figure 2Demographic and clinical feature selection using the LASSO regression model. (A) 10-fold cross-validated error (first vertical line equals the minimum error, whereas the second vertical line shows the cross-validated error within 1 standard error of the minimum). (B) LASSO coefficient profiles of all the clinical features.
Figure 3The overlapping features identified by the Model I (LASSO regression) and model II (multivariate logistic regression).
Figure 4Nomogram for predicting the risk of NAFLD in adults with visceral fat obesity.
Figure 5ROC curve of the nomogram in the training and validation cohort. (A) ROC curve of the nomogram in the training cohort. (B) ROC curve of the nomogram in the validation cohort.
Figure 6Calibration curves for the training and validation cohort models. (A) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the training cohort. (B) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the validation cohort.
Figure 7Decision curve analysis of the nomogram in the training (A) and validation cohorts (B). The y-axis stands the net benefit.