Table 2.

Relationship between HDL-C and MASLD risk in different models.

Variable	Model 1 (OR, 95% CI, p)	Model 2 (OR, 95% CI, p)	Model 3 (OR, 95% CI, p)	Model 4 (OR, 95% CI, p)
HDL-C	0.05 (0.05, 0.06) < 0.0001	0.28 (0.23, 0.33) < 0.0001	0.46 (0.37, 0.58) < 0.0001	0.59 (0.46, 0.74) < 0.0001
HDL-C (quartile)
Q1	ref	ref	ref	ref
Q2	0.43 (0.39, 0.48) < 0.0001	0.71 (0.63, 0.81) < 0.0001	0.91 (0.78, 1.04) 0.1728	0.97 (0.83, 1.12) 0.6410
Q3	0.16 (0.14, 0.19) < 0.0001	0.44 (0.38, 0.52) < 0.0001	0.63 (0.53, 0.76) < 0.0001	0.73 (0.60, 0.88) 0.0009
Q4	0.07 (0.05, 0.08) < 0.0001	0.31 (0.25, 0.39) < 0.0001	0.46 (0.36, 0.59) < 0.0001	0.58 (0.45, 0.75) < 0.0001
p for trend	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

Model 1: we did not adjust for other covariants.

Model 2: we adjusted for age, ethanol consumption, smoking, physical activity SBP, DBP, and BMI.

Model 3: we adjusted for age, ethanol consumption, smoking, physical activity, SBP, DBP, BMI, TC, TG, HbA1c, and FPG.

Model 4: we adjusted for age, ethanol consumption, smoking, physical activity, SBP, DBP, BMI, TC, TG, HbA1c, and FPG. However, continuous covariates were adjusted as nonlinearity.

OR, Odds ratios; CI, Confidence interval: Ref, Reference.