Table 3.

The association of yogurt consumption with NAFLD (n = 24,389)

Logistic regression models	Yogurt consumption				P for trenda
	<1 time/week	1 time/week	2–3 times/week	≥4 times/week
No. of subjects	10,271	3389	5959	4770	–
No. of NAFLD	2383	626	941	708	–
Model 1	1.00 (reference)	0.75 (0.68, 0.83)b	0.62 (0.57, 0.67)	0.58 (0.53, 0.63)	<0.0001
Model 2	1.00 (reference)	1.01 (0.89, 1.14)	0.93 (0.84, 1.03)	0.85 (0.76, 0.96)	<0.01
Model 3	1.00 (reference)	0.97 (0.85, 1.10)	0.89 (0.80, 0.99)	0.84 (0.74, 0.95)	<0.01
Model 4	1.00 (reference)	0.99 (0.87, 1.13)	0.90 (0.81, 1.01)	0.85 (0.75, 0.97)	<0.01
Model 5	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (0.88, 1.14)	0.91 (0.81, 1.02)	0.86 (0.76, 0.98)	0.01

Model 1: crude model

Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index

Model 3: model 2 plus further adjusted for smoking status, alcohol drinking status, education level, working status, household income, physical activity, family history of disease (including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes), total energy intake, carbohydrate intake, total fat intake, eicosapentaenoic acid + docosahexaenoic acid intake, soft drinks intake, vegetables intake, fruits intake, sweet foods intake, and milk intake

Model 4: model 3 plus further adjusted for hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia

Model 5: model 4 plus further adjusted for WBC count

NAFLD non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

^aObtained by using multiple logistic regression analysis

^bOdds ratio (95% confidence interval) (all such values)