Biomedical and environmental sciences : BES · 2026
Lipid-related Insulin Resistance Indices for the Diagnosis of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Chinese Adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cao Wei Hua, Zhang Ya Qin, Zhang Zi Yu, Li Xin Xin, Deng Wen, Wang Shi Yu, Wei Xin, Yao Lin Mei, Gao Zi Xuan, Wang Shuo Jie, Zhang Lu, Lu Yao, Liu Ru Yu, Wu Shu Ling, Gao Yuan Jiao, Hao Hong Xiao, Xie Yao, Li Ming Hui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the diagnostic efficacy of lipid-related insulin resistance (IR) markers in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic abnormalities (MA).
METHOD: Patients with NAFLD with MA, non-NAFLD patients with MA, and patients with NAFLD without MA underwent liver biopsy. Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C), visceral obesity index (VAI), lipid accumulation product (LAP), and triglyceride glucose (TyG) index were analyzed. The diagnostic efficacy of these indicators of NAFLD was also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the NAFLD-MA group, BMI, HOMA-IR, LAP, VAI, TyG index, and TG/HDL-C ratio were higher than those in the non-NAFLD-MA group ( P < 0.001). Logistic regression indicated that BMI and TyG index were independent risk factors for NAFLD. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves analysis revealed that the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) for TyG-BMI was 0.819, and the optimal cutoff for NAFLD was TyG-BMI 39.77. For patients with NAFLD with or without MA, logistic regression analysis suggested that age, TG level, and TyG index were independent risk factors. The area under the ROC curve showed that AUC for the TyG index was 0.724. The optimal cutoff for NAFLD-non MA was a TyG index of 1.580.
CONCLUSION: TyG index has diagnostic value in both types of NAFLD; however, TyG-BMI is better in patients with NAFLD with MA and may be an effective screening indicator alone in patients with NAFLD without MA.
METHOD: Patients with NAFLD with MA, non-NAFLD patients with MA, and patients with NAFLD without MA underwent liver biopsy. Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), triglyceride/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C), visceral obesity index (VAI), lipid accumulation product (LAP), and triglyceride glucose (TyG) index were analyzed. The diagnostic efficacy of these indicators of NAFLD was also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the NAFLD-MA group, BMI, HOMA-IR, LAP, VAI, TyG index, and TG/HDL-C ratio were higher than those in the non-NAFLD-MA group ( P < 0.001). Logistic regression indicated that BMI and TyG index were independent risk factors for NAFLD. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves analysis revealed that the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) for TyG-BMI was 0.819, and the optimal cutoff for NAFLD was TyG-BMI 39.77. For patients with NAFLD with or without MA, logistic regression analysis suggested that age, TG level, and TyG index were independent risk factors. The area under the ROC curve showed that AUC for the TyG index was 0.724. The optimal cutoff for NAFLD-non MA was a TyG index of 1.580.
CONCLUSION: TyG index has diagnostic value in both types of NAFLD; however, TyG-BMI is better in patients with NAFLD with MA and may be an effective screening indicator alone in patients with NAFLD without MA.