Skip to main content
. 2025 Jan 2;50(1):115–130. doi: 10.1159/000543404

Table 3.

Relationship between FLI, MASLD, and kidney stones in different models

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
OR (95% CI) p value OR (95% CI) p value OR (95% CI) p value
FLI 1.01 (1.01–1.01) <0.001 1.01 (1.01–1.01) <0.001 1.01 (1.01–1.01) <0.001
Categories
 Quartile 1 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Quartile 2 1.59 (1.38–1.82) <0.001 1.32 (1.14–1.52) <0.001 1.26 (1.09–1.45) 0.001
 Quartile 3 1.98 (1.74–2.27) <0.001 1.61 (1.40–1.85) <0.001 1.46 (1.27–1.68) <0.001
 Quartile 4 2.37 (2.08–2.70) <0.001 2.05 (1.79–2.34) <0.001 1.68 (1.46–1.93) <0.001
MASLD
 No 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference) 1.00 (reference)
 Yes 1.68 (1.54–1.83) <0.001 1.54 (1.41–1.69) <0.001 1.35 (1.23–1.48) <0.001

The bold values indicated statistically significant.

FLI, fatty liver index; MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease; PIR, poverty-to-income ratio; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Model 1: crude.

Model 2: adjusted for gender, age, and race.

Model 3: adjusted for gender, age, race, education level, marital status, family PIR, smoke, alcohol, physical activity, MS, hypertension, CHD, stroke, and cancer.