Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 22;4(6):e2114186. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14186

Table 2. Association of Top Metabolites With the Progression of Gastric Lesions During Follow-up of the Validation Set Participantsa.

Metabolite Progression vs nonprogression for all participants with prospective follow-up Progression vs nonprogression for IM cases only
No./total No. OR (95% CI) P value No./total No. OR (95% CI) P value
sn-2 LysoPC(20:3) 53/99 1.13 (0.80-1.59) .27 9/31 0.72 (0.35-1.48) .23
sn-1 LysoPC(18:3) 53/99 0.82 (0.59-1.15) .17 9/31 0.58 (0.27-1.25) .12
α-Linolenic acid 53/99 0.64 (0.45-0.91) .02 9/31 0.42 (0.18-0.98) .05
Linoleic acid 53/99 0.69 (0.48-0.99) .05 9/31 0.43 (0.19-1.00) .05
Palmitic acid 53/99 0.63 (0.43-0.92) .02 9/31 0.32 (0.13-0.78) .02
Arachidonic acid 53/99 0.90 (0.65-1.25) .30 9/31 0.47 (0.21-1.07) .07

Abbreviations: IM, intestinal metaplasia; LysoPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; OR, odds ratio.

a

Individual metabolites validated to be associated with gastric cancer are shown here, ranked in the same order as given in Table 1. Conditional logistic regression analyses stratified on baseline gastric histopathologic factors were conducted, with adjustment for age, sex, and Helicobacter pylori infection.