4.4 Article

Identifying subgroups of obesity using the product of triglycerides and glucose: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2008-2010

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 82, 期 2, 页码 213-220

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12502

关键词

-

资金

  1. Handok, Inc.
  2. Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2013M3C8A2075675]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo determine whether the TyG index, a product of the levels of triglycerides and glucose, may be a valuable marker for identifying metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW) or metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) individuals. Design and subjectsA total of 17029 nondiabetic subjects (7185 men and 9844 women) were selected from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted in 2008-2010. Individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI) (185 and <23kg/m(2)) and the highest quartile of the homoeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were classified as MONW. Individuals with obesity (BMI 25kg/m(2)) and the lowest quartile of HOMA-IR were classified as MHO. MeasurementsThe TyG index was calculated as ln[fasting triglycerides (mg/dl)xfasting glucose (mg/dl)/2]. ResultsThe levels of the TyG index paralleled with various metabolic risk parameters. The index was significantly higher in the MONW group and lower in the MHO group when compared with the non-MONW group and the non-MHO group, respectively. The odds ratios (ORs) of being categorized into the MONW group were approximately fourfold higher in the highest vs lowest quartiles of the TyG index (3999: 95% CI, 2508-6376 in men; 4737: 95% CI, 3418-6565 in women) among normal weight subjects. Conversely, there was a stepwise decrease in the OR of being categorized into the MHO group across the TyG index quartiles among obese subjects. ConclusionsThese data highlight the value of the TyG index in discriminating those subjects with higher risks of metabolic diseases.

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

4.4
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