Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis of 5 IR Markers and NAFLD in obese population.

	Model 1		Model 2
	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)
HOMA-IR
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.001	2.739 (1.530, 4.902)	0.001	2.753 (1.534, 4.939)
Q3	< 0.001	6.179 (3.556, 10.737)	< 0.001	6.199 (3.553, 10.816)
Q4	< 0.001	11.090 (6.423, 19.147)	< 0.001	10.711 (6.170, 18.593)
TG/HDL-c
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	< 0.001	2.421 (1.484, 3.950)	0.001	2.376 (1.450, 3.896)
Q3	< 0.001	3.477 (2.161, 5.595)	< 0.001	3.560 (2.200, 5.763)
Q4	< 0.001	4.474 (2.795, 7.161)	< 0.001	4.713 (2.917, 7.614)
TyG
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.002	2.215 (1.355, 3.621)	0.001	2.261 (1.377, 3.712)
Q3	< 0.001	3.801 (2.369, 6.100)	< 0.001	3.799 (2.356, 6.126)
Q4	< 0.001	4.103 (2.559, 6.581)	< 0.001	4.225 (2.616, 6.822)
METS-IR
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.005	2.086 (1.254, 3.470)	0.005	2.080 (1.247, 3.468)
Q3	< 0.001	3.895 (2.400, 6.322)	< 0.001	3.874 (2.375, 6.319)
Q4	< 0.001	5.399 (3.344, 8.717)	< 0.001	5.117 (3.141, 8.336)
TyG-BMI
Q1		Ref		Ref
Q2	0.046	1.665 (1.009, 2.749)	0.040	1.695 (1.024, 2.805)
Q3	< 0.001	3.454 (2.159, 5.525)	< 0.001	3.341 (2.083, 5.358)
Q4	< 0.001	4.874 (3.065, 7.752)	< 0.001	4.582 (2.866, 7.325)

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