Table 2.

Logistic regression analysis of 5 IR markers associated with NAFLD.

	Model 1		Model 2
	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)
HOMA-IR
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.039	1.809 (1.030, 3.176)	0.049	1.761 (1.001, 3.096)
Q3	< 0.001	5.292 (3.207, 8.733)	< 0.001	5.033 (3.043, 8.323)
Q4	< 0.001	16.701 (10.343, 26.967)	< 0.001	15.425 (9.496, 25.058)
TG/HDL-c
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	< 0.001	2.801 (1.685,4.657)	< 0.001	2.618 (1.568, 4.373)
Q3	< 0.001	5.837 (3.621, 9.408)	< 0.001	5.289 (3.262, 8.575)
Q4	< 0.001	11.298 (7.107, 17.959)	< 0.001	10.540 (6.565, 16.923)
TyG
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	< 0.001	2.664 (1.598, 4.440)	< 0.001	2.565 (1.535,4.286)
Q3	< 0.001	5.237 (3.243, 8.458)	< 0.001	4.969 (3.068, 8.048)
Q4	< 0.001	12.308 (7.747, 19.556)	< 0.001	11.300 (7.079, 18.039)
METS-IR
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	< 0.001	4.968 (2.393, 10.311)	< 0.001	5.567 (2.657, 11.666)
Q3	< 0.001	14.632 (7.324, 29.233)	< 0.001	17.111 (8.401, 34.853)
Q4	< 0.001	33.720 (17.051, 66.686)	< 0.001	39.055 (19.203, 79.430)
TyG-BMI
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	< 0.001	5.766 (2.551, 13.031)	< 0.001	6.031 (2.658, 13.685)
Q3	< 0.001	19.682 (9.073, 42.695)	< 0.001	21.093 (9.627, 46.217)
Q4	< 0.001	44.353 (20.618, 95.413)	< 0.001	45.527 (20.842, 99.447)

Model 1: unadjusted; Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, history of hypertension.