Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87(6):1809–1817. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/87.6.1809

TABLE 2.

Associations of body-composition measures with homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) (log-transformed)1

Men
 Women
HIV+ Control HIV+ Control
Univariate Spearman correlations (r)
    MRI
        VAT 0.392 0.542 0.282 0.662
        UT SAT 0.402 0.582 0.292 0.642
        Leg SAT 0.113 0.442 0.10 0.412
        LT SAT 0.292 0.622 0.194 0.552
        Arm SAT 0.262 0.522 0.214 0.562
        Total SAT 0.292 0.592 0.214 0.562
        Total fat 0.352 0.612 0.224 0.572
        Percentage body fat 0.302 0.562 0.153 0.462
    Anthropometric
        BMI 0.372 0.582 0.292 0.602
        WC 0.472,5 0.642,5 0.322,5 0.682,5
        HC 0.312 0.482 0.194 0.562
        WHR 0.382 0.482 0.224 0.542
Multivariate-adjusted R2
    MRI (log-transformed)
        VAT 0.16 0.38 0.07 0.47
        VAT + leg SAT 0.16 0.40 0.07 0.47
        VAT + UT SAT + leg SAT 0.23 0.43 0.09 0.475
        VAT + UT SAT + LT SAT 0.21 0.445 0.09 0.46
        UT SAT + leg SAT 0.235 0.40 0.095 0.41
        VAT + total SAT 0.18 0.43 0.07 0.46
    Anthropometric
        WC 0.245 0.46 0.09 0.45
        WC + BMI 0.24 0.485 0.09 0.44
        WHR + BMI 0.22 0.46 0.115 0.455
    Combination
        WC + VAT + UT SAT + leg SAT 0.265-8 0.45 0.10 0.47
        WC + BMI + VAT + UT SAT + leg SAT 0.26 0.485,6 0.10 0.48
        WC + BMI + VAT + UT SAT + LT SAT 0.25 0.48 0.145,6 0.47
        WHR + BMI + VAT + leg SAT 0.22 0.47 0.11 0.485,6
    Base model9
        Background variance explained 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.14
1

HIV+, HIV-infected; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; VAT, visceral adipose tissue; UT, upper trunk; LT, lower trunk; WC, waist circumference; WHR, waist-to-hip ratio. All comparisons of best anthropometric versus best MRI had P > 0.15. Outcomes were log-transformed to normalize the error residual distribution. For comparison, the models were restricted to have the same set of observations.

2−4 Significant correlation coefficients

2

P < 0.0001

3

P < 0.05

4

P < 0.01.

5

The strongest MRI, anthropometric, or combination model in each column.

6

The strongest within the entire column.

7

Significant comparison with best MRI combination, P < 0.01.

8

Significant comparison with best anthropometric combination, P < 0.05.

9

Base model and all other models were controlled for demographics and lifestyle factors.