Skip to main content

Table 2 Linear regression analysis between eGDR and CAP and LSM

From: The association between estimated glucose disposal rate and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and liver fibrosis in US adults

Exposure

Crude Model

β (95%CI)

P

Model I

β (95%CI)

P

Model II

β (95%CI)

P

CAP

   

eGDR, Per 1 SD increase

-31.65 (-33.66, -29.64)

< 0.01

-15.90 (-19.88, -11.91)

< 0.01

-15.18 (-19.23, -11.12)

< 0.01

Quartiles

      

eGDR < 4.87

Ref

1.0

Ref

1.0

Ref

1.0

eGDR 4.87–6.49

-40.21 (-45.67, -34.75)

< 0.01

-21.78 (-30.18, -13.38)

< 0.01

-21.00 (-29.56, -12.44)

< 0.01

eGDR 6.49–9.31

-50.55 (-56.01, -45.08)

< 0.01

-29.54 (-38.54, -20.54)

< 0.01

-28.17 (-37.35, -18.98)

< 0.01

eGDR ≥ 9.31

-83.32 (-88.78.-77.85)

< 0.01

-48.20 (-58.61, -37.79)

< 0.01

-46.47 (-57.06, -35,87)

< 0.01

P for trend

< 0.01

 

< 0.01

 

< 0.01

 

LSM

   

eGDR, Per 1 SD increase

-1.12 (-1.29, − 0.094)

< 0.01

-0.79 (-1.17, -0.42)

< 0.01

-0.74 (-1.12, -0.35)

< 0.01

Quartiles

      

eGDR < 4.87

Ref

1.0

Ref

1.0

Ref

1.0

eGDR 4.87–6.49

-1.94 (-2.42, -1.46)

< 0.01

− 0.146 (-2.27, -0.64)

< 0.01

-1.30 (-2.13, -0.47)

< 0.01

eGDR 6.49–9.31

-2.09 (-2.57, -1.62)

< 0.01

-1.60 (-2.47, -0.72)

< 0.01

-1.41 (-2.30, 0.52)

< 0.01

eGDR ≥ 9.31

-2.79 (-3.26, -2.31)

< 0.01

-1.91 (-2.92, -0.90)

< 0.01

-1.72 (-2.75, -0.70)

< 0.01

P for trend

< 0.01

 

< 0.01

 

< 0.01

 
  1. Note: Crude Model: unadjusted any factor
  2. Model I was adjusted for age, gender, race, marital, education, PIR, fasting glucose, ALT, AST, eGFR, HLD-C and UA. Model II was adjusted for Model I, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, moderate PA, smoking status
  3. Abbreviations: 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; PIR: the ratio of family income to poverty; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferase, eGFR: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, HLD-C: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, UA: uric acid; PA: Physical activity