4.7 Article

The ratio of serum leptin to adiponectin provides adjunctive information to the risk of metabolic syndrome beyond the homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance: The Korean Genomic Rural Cohort Study

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 412, 期 23-24, 页码 2199-2205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2011.08.003

关键词

Leptin; Adiponectin; Leptin/adiponectin ratio; Metabolic syndrome; Insulin resistance

资金

  1. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2005-E71013-00, 2006-E71002-00, 2007-E71013-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Leptin and adiponectin are adipokines, shown to have opposing functions for fat metabolism and development of metabolic syndrome. We determined if the ratio of serum leptin to adiponectin (L/A ratio) adjunctively contributes to the risk of metabolic syndrome beyond the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Methods: This study included 1532 men and 1856 women, aged 40-70 y assessed in the Korean Genomic Rural Cohort Study from 2005 to 2008. The serum concentrations of adiponectin and leptin were measured by radioimmunoassay. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analyses were used to describe the ability of L/A ratio and HOMA-IR to differentiate between subjects with and without metabolic syndrome. Results: There were no significant differences in the ability of L/A ratio and HOMA-IR to predict metabolic syndrome (AUROC of L/A ratio vs. HOMA-IR, 0.771 vs. 0.774, p = 0.8006 for men; 0.677 vs. 0.691, p = 0.3088 for women). There was a significant adjunctive contribution by the L/A ratio, beyond that of HOMA-IR, to the risk of metabolic syndrome in men (p<0.0001 with 0.028 increased AUROC) and women (p = 0.025 with 0.017 increased AUROC). Conclusions: The L/A ratio provides significant adjunctive information to the risk of metabolic syndrome beyond HOMA-IR alone. The L/A ratio could be a good surrogate marker to assess metabolic syndrome. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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