4.5 Article

The triglyceride and glucose index (TyG) is an effective biomarker to identify nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12944-017-0409-6

关键词

The triglyceride and glucose index; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; Alanine aminotransferase; Insulin resistance

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570740]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The triglyceride and glucose index (TyG) has been proposed as a marker of insulin resistance. We aimed to investigate the ability of TyG, through comparing with the predictive value of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), to identify individuals at risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a Chinese health examination cohort of 10 761 people aged above 20 years. NAFLD was diagnosed by ultrasonography. Results: Compared with the participants in the lowest quartile of TyG, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for NAFLD were 1.8 (1.5-2.1), 3.0 (2.5-3.5), and 6.3 (5.3-7.5) for those in the second, the third, and the fourth quartile of TyG, whereas the corresponding ORs (95% CI) for NAFLD were 1.5 (1.3-1.7), 1.9 (1.6-2.2), and 3.1 (2.6-3.7) for the upper three quartiles of ALT. These results suggested that TyG was superior to ALT in association with NAFLD risk. According to the ROC analysis, the optimal cut-off point of TyG for NAFLD was 8.5 and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.782 (95% CI 0.773-0.790), with 72.2 and 70.5% sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The AUC of TyG was larger than that of ALT (0.715 (95% CI 0.705-0.725), P for difference < 0.0001), whereas the largest AUC was obtained when adding TyG to ALT (0.804 (95% CI 0.795-0.812), P for difference < 0.0001). Conclusions: TyG is effective to identify individuals at risk for NAFLD. A TyG threshold of 8.5 was highly sensitive for detecting NAFLD subjects and may be suitable as a diagnostic criterion for NAFLD in Chinese adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据