Table 4.

Relationship between AIP and the incident diabetes in different models

AIP Exposure	Overall (HR,95%CI, P)	Chinese (HR,95%CI, P)	Japanese (HR,95%CI, P)
Model I:
AIP	8.472 (7.426, 9.666) P < 0.001	6.771 (5.814, 7.886) P < 0.001	10.260 (7.713, 13.648) P < 0.001
AIP Quartiles
Q1	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Q2	2.064 (1.693, 2.516) P < 0.001	1.839 (1.444, 2.342) P < 0.001	1.835 (1.279, 2.634) P = 0.001
Q3	4.097 (3.424, 4.902) P < 0.001	3.540 (2.837, 4.418) P < 0.001	3.629 (2.628, 5.012) P < 0.001
Q4	7.592 (6.411, 8.989) P < 0.001	6.199 (5.021, 7.653) P < 0.001	7.525 (5.617, 10.080) P < 0.001
P for trend	P < 0.001	P < 0.001	P < 0.001
Model II:
AIP	3.032 (2.582, 3.560) P < 0.001	2.499 (2.081, 3.002) P < 0.001	4.119 (2.892, 5.866) P < 0.001
AIP Quartiles
Q1	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Q2	1.266 (1.036, 1.548) P = 0.021	1.180 (0.925, 1.507) P = 0.183	1.142 (0.787, 1.657) P = 0.485
Q3	1.768 (1.465, 2.133) P < 0.001	1.567 (1.248, 1.969) P < 0.001	1.743 (1.229, 2.474) P = 0.002
Q4	2.445 (2.033, 2.939) P < 0.001	2.046 (1.636, 2.559) P < 0.001	2.838 (2.020, 3.987) P < 0.001
P for trend	P < 0.001	P < 0.001	P < 0.001
Model III:
AIP	2.390 (2.047, 2.792) P < 0.001	1.843 (1.540, 2.206) P < 0.001	2.420 (1.665, 3.516) P < 0.001
AIP Quartiles
Q1	Ref.	Ref.	Ref.
Q2	1.204 (0.984, 1.473) P = 0.071	1.099 (0.861, 1.403) P = 0.449	0.893 (0.612, 1.303) P = 0.557
Q3	1.718 (1.423, 2.074) P < 0.001	1.432 (1.140, 1.800) P = 0.002	1.346 (0.944, 1.920) P = 0.101
Q4	2.197 (1.825, 2.643) P < 0.001	1.704 (1.360, 2.134) P < 0.001	1.771 (1.237, 2.536) P = 0.002
P for trend	P < 0.001	P < 0.001	P < 0.001

Model I: We did not adjust other covariates

Model II: We adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, DBP, smoking, and drinking status

Model III: We adjust age, gender, BMI, SBP, DBP, FPG, LDL-c, ALT, AST, smoking, and drinking status

HR, Hazard ratios; CI: confidence, Ref: reference; AIP, atherogenic index of plasma