| Literature DB >> 36096754 |
Le-Yao Jian1,2, Shu-Xia Guo1,2, Ru-Lin Ma1,2, Jia He1,2, Dong-Sheng Rui1,2, Yu-Song Ding1,2, Yu Li1,2, Xue-Ying Sun1, Yi-Dan Mao1, Xin He1, Sheng-Yu Liao1, Heng Guo3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the ability of certain obesity-related indicators to identify metabolic syndrome (MetS) among normal-weight adults in rural Xinjiang.Entities:
Keywords: Metabolic syndrome; Normal-weight; Obesity-related indicators; Screening
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36096754 PMCID: PMC9469584 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14122-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Basic Characteristics of the study participants according to gender and MetS
| Characteristics | Male ( | Female ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-MetS | MetS | Non-MetS | MetS | |||
| 1865 (85.8%) | 309 (14.2%) | 1759 (82.2%) | 382 (17.8%) | |||
| Age (years) | 31.44 ± 13.28 | 39.51 ± 16.29 | < 0.001 | 29.72 ± 11.09 | 42.17 ± 15.75 | < 0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 170.20 ± 7.01 | 171.10 ± 7.46 | 0.038 | 160.02 ± 6.96 | 159.34 ± 8.01 | 0.123 |
| Weight (kg) | 62.94 ± 6.00 | 65.14 ± 6.29 | < 0.001 | 55.21 ± 5.86 | 56.39 ± 6.33 | < 0.001 |
| WC (cm) | 83.39 ± 10.67 | 91.95 ± 11.38 | < 0.001 | 79.32 ± 11.37 | 87.51 ± 9.03 | < 0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.71 ± 1.43 | 22.23 ± 1.32 | < 0.001 | 21.53 ± 1.50 | 22.16 ± 1.28 | < 0.001 |
| WHtR | 0.49 ± 0.06 | 0.54 ± 0.69 | < 0.001 | 0.50 ± 0.07 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | < 0.001 |
| ABSI | 0.0822 ± 0.0100 | 0.0891 ± 0.0120 | < 0.001 | 0.0812 ± 0.0114 | 0.0881 ± 0.0010 | < 0.001 |
| CI | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 1.12 ± 0.14 | < 0.001 | 0.99 ± 0.14 | 1.09 ± 0.11 | < 0.001 |
| LAP | 23.09 ± 20.99 | 61.50 ± 47.22 | < 0.001 | 22.99 ± 19.82 | 61.08 ± 44.12 | < 0.001 |
| TyG index | 8.25 ± 0.61 | 9.00 ± 0.75 | < 0.001 | 8.07 ± 0.60 | 8.86 ± 0.68 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 122.71 ± 15.41 | 136.29 ± 15.77 | < 0.001 | 117.56 ± 13.94 | 134.02 ± 19.68 | < 0.001 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 70.51 ± 10.71 | 77.23 ± 11.68 | < 0.001 | 71.01 ± 10.07 | 76.73 ± 12.28 | < 0.001 |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 4.60 ± 0.97 | 5.53 ± 1.56 | < 0.001 | 4.45 ± 0.95 | 5.33 ± 1.91 | < 0.001 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.27 ± 1.21 | 4.76 ± 1.23 | < 0.001 | 4.17 ± 0.99 | 4.81 ± 1.28 | < 0.001 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.24 ± 0.81 | 2.31 ± 1.43 | < 0.001 | 1.08 ± 0.70 | 2.03 ± 1.19 | < 0.001 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.43 ± 0.81 | 2.57 ± 0.76 | 0.004 | 2.28 ± 0.82 | 2.65 ± 0.90 | < 0.001 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.60 ± 0.55 | 1.50 ± 0.63 | 0.010 | 1.69 ± 0.55 | 1.39 ± 0.53 | < 0.001 |
| High BP level, (n/%) | 589 (31.6%) | 261 (84.5%) | < 0.001 | 332 (18.9%) | 258 (67.5%) | < 0.001 |
| Abdominal obesity, (n/%) | 754 (40.4%) | 272 (88.0%) | < 0.001 | 816 (46.4%) | 354 (92.7%) | < 0.001 |
| Dysglycemia, (n/%) | 185 (9.9%) | 165 (53.3%) | < 0.001 | 127 (7.2%) | 143 (37.4%) | < 0.001 |
| High TG level, (n/%) | 312 (16.7%) | 220 (71.2%) | < 0.001 | 198 (11.3%) | 238 (62.3%) | < 0.001 |
| Low HDL-C level, (n/%) | 129 (6.9%) | 69 (22.3%) | < 0.001 | 422 (24.0%) | 254 (66.5%) | < 0.001 |
Fig. 1Adjusted OR and 95% CI of MetS according to the levels of each index for Male and Female. A Male. B Female. Model: Adjusted age, education, occupation, marital status, smoking, and drinking habits. WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, ABSI: a body shape index, CI: conicity index, LAP: lipid accumulation product, TyG index: triglyceride-glucose index
Fig. 2ROC curves for screening MetS for different genders. A Male. B Female. WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, ABSI: a body shape index, CI: conicity index, LAP: lipid accumulation product, TyG index: triglyceride-glucose index. Nomogram model: including age, CI, LAP, and TyG index
ROC analysis of each obesity-related index and Nomogram model by gender
| Gender | Variables | Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden’s index | AUC (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | WHtR | 0.497 | 0.780 | 0.594 | 0.374 | 0.717*(0.689–0.746) | < 0.001 |
| ABSI | 0.081 | 0.841 | 0.496 | 0.337 | 0.700*(0.671–0.729) | < 0.001 | |
| CI | 1.030 | 0.858 | 0.575 | 0.433 | 0.734^*(0.706–0.761) | < 0.001 | |
| LAP | 39.700 | 0.667 | 0.863 | 0.530 | 0.831^(0.806–0.856) | < 0.001 | |
| TyG index | 8.762 | 0.709 | 0.824 | 0.533 | 0.817^(0.788–0.845) | < 0.001 | |
| Nomogram model | −1.915 | 0.770 | 0.817 | 0.587 | 0.876^*(0.856–0.895) | < 0.001 | |
| Female | WHtR | 0.497 | 0.851 | 0.534 | 0.385 | 0.747*(0.721–0.772) | < 0.001 |
| ABSI | 0.083 | 0.725 | 0.639 | 0.364 | 0.717^*(0.691–0.743) | < 0.001 | |
| CI | 0.998 | 0.848 | 0.575 | 0.423 | 0.749*(0.724–0.773) | < 0.001 | |
| LAP | 35.065 | 0.725 | 0.821 | 0.546 | 0.842^(0.820–0.864) | < 0.001 | |
| TyG index | 8.614 | 0.699 | 0.832 | 0.531 | 0.817^*(0.791–0.842) | < 0.001 | |
| Nomogram model | −1.579 | 0.777 | 0.829 | 0.606 | 0.877^*(0.857–0.896) | < 0.001 |
Notes: ^ indicates P < 0.05 for AUC vs WHtR, * indicates P < 0.05 for AUC vs LAP. WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, ABSI: a body shape index, CI: conicity index, LAP: lipid accumulation product, TyG index: triglyceride-glucose index. Nomogram model: including age, CI, LAP, and TyG index
Multivariate logistic regression screening variables
| Gender | Variables | OR (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Age | 1.023 (1.013 ~ 1.033) | < 0.001 |
| CI | 5.476 (3.675 ~ 8.159) | < 0.001 | |
| LAP | 2.202 (1.531 ~ 3.168) | < 0.001 | |
| TyG index | 8.210 (5.764 ~ 11.693) | < 0.001 | |
| Female | Age | 1.039 (1.029 ~ 1.049) | < 0.001 |
| Drink | 1.460 (0.894 ~ 2.167) | 0.060 | |
| CI | 4.936 (3.424 ~ 7.117) | < 0.001 | |
| LAP | 1.893 (1.312 ~ 2.733) | < 0.001 | |
| TyG index | 6.740 (4.727 ~ 9.610) | < 0.001 |
Notes: WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, ABSI: a body shape index, CI: conicity index, LAP: lipid accumulation product, TyG index: triglyceride-glucose index
Fig. 3Nomogram and Calibration curves to estimate the risk of MetS for Male and Female. A/B – Male. C/D Female. WHtR: waist-to-height ratio, ABSI: a body shape index, CI: conicity index, LAP: lipid accumulation product, TyG index: triglyceride-glucose index. Usage example: If a woman was 50-year-old, 45 points can be accumulated according to (C). Assuming her CI ≥ 0.998, 45 points were accumulated. Similarly, assuming her LAP < 35.565 and TyG index ≥8.614, then she should accumulate 0 points and 57.5points. Then her total score was 147.5 (45 + 45 + 57.5). Finally, the risk of MetS was about 60% after making a straight line from the total points to the risk axis