Table 3.

Relationship between UHR and LFC.

	Crude model		Model I		Model II
	β (95% CI)	P value	β (95% CI)	P value	β (95% CI)	P value
Male
UHR	0.175(0.150,0.199)	< 0.001	0.176(0.151,0.202)	< 0.001	0.090(0.057,0.123)	0.002
Q1	Reference		Reference		Reference
Q2	1.325(0.700,1.951)	< 0.001	1.324(0.697,1.951)	< 0.001	0.627(0.045,1.213)	0.034
Q3	2.217(1.592,2.842)	< 0.001	2.240(1.610,2.870)	< 0.001	0.971(0.337,1.579)	0.004
Q4	4.179(3.553,4.805)	< 0.001	4.216(3.578,4.854)	< 0.001	2.119(1.353,2.886)	< 0.001
P for trend		< 0.001		< 0.001		< 0.001
Female
UHR	0.270(0.233,0.308)	< 0.001	0.269(0.231,0.306)	< 0.001	0.093(0.043,0.143)	< 0.001
Q1	Reference		Reference		Reference
Q2	0.799(0.159,1.440)	0.015	0.800(0.160,1.440)	0.014	0.081(-0.527, 0.689)	0.794
Q3	1.916(1.277,2.555)	< 0.001	1.914(1.274,2.554)	< 0.001	0.210(-0.468, 0.887)	0.544
Q4	4.174(3.537,4.812)	< 0.001	4.153(3.513,4.792)	< 0.001	1.312 (0.499, 2.124)	0.002
P for trend		< 0.001		< 0.001		0.002

Crude model: no covariates were adjusted.

Model I: Age and nationality were adjusted.

Model II: Age, nationality, BMI, SBP, DBP, TC, TG, LDL-C, TP, Hb, ALT, AST, ALP, GGT, FBG, and serum creatinine were adjusted.