4.6 Article

Association of fourteen years diet quality trajectories and type 2 diabetes mellitus with related biomarkers

期刊

AGING-US
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 10112-10127

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC

关键词

diet; quality; trajectories; T2DM; biomarkers

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1307401]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81573134]
  3. China Scholarship Council [2016BSZ5562]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that long-term unhealthy diet is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, and gradually reducing the level of diet quality may not make a significant difference, highlighting the importance of promoting healthy eating habits in early adulthood.
Diet quality fluctuates throughout one?s adulthood, yet it remains unclear how long-term diet quality changes are related to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its biomarkers. We aimed to examine the association of long-term diet quality with T2DM and its biomarkers. Diet quality was assessed by the revised DBI-07, in which diet quality distance levels (DQD) represented the overall diet quality. Participants were clustered into classes sharing similar DQD levels using latent class mixed model. We used Cox regression and random effect linear regression to assess DQD trajectories? association with T2DM and its biomarkers. Three DQD trajectories were derived: moderate to gradual decrease, high to moderate, high stable DQD level representing 2.14%, 6.18% and, 91.68% of the population. Compared to class 1, class 2 and 3 were associated with an increased risk of T2DM [HR=4.40; 95%CI: 2.02-9.59]; [HR=3.68; 95% CI: 2.11-6.43]. When class 3 was used as a reference, class 1 was also associated with an increased risk of TDM [HR=2.71; 95%CI: 1.55-4.73]. Our findings suggest that a long-term unhealthy diet is associated with an increased risk of T2DM. Gradually reducing DQD level may not make a difference, which establishes the importance of promoting healthy eating habits at early adulthood.

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

4.6
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