Table 4.
Multiple Logistic Regression Analyses of the Relationship Between L-Val, MDA and NDM
| Independent Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| L-Val (μg/mL) | 1.08 (1.04–1.11) | <0.001 | 1.08 (1.03–1.12) | 0.001 | 1.06 (1.02–1.10) | 0.005 |
| L-Val | ||||||
| I | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| II | 1.62 (0.81–3.27) | 0.175 | 1.47 (0.79–3.26) | 0.297 | 1.62 (0.77–3.44) | 0.205 |
| III | 1.97 (0.998–3.89) | 0.051 | 1.35 (0.71–3.05) | 0.415 | 1.25 (0.59–2.64) | 0.562 |
| IV | 2.61 (1.47–4.61) | 0.001 | 2.37 (1.20–4.69) | 0.013 | 2.25 (1.11–4.57) | 0.024 |
Notes: Model 1: un-adjusting. Model 2: adjusting for age, gender BMI and MDA. Model 2: adjusting for age, gender, BMI, MDA, SBP, DBP, TC, TG, HDL-C, LDL-C, eGFR and smoking status. Definitions of T2DM were in statistical analysis. Classifying patients into four sub-groups on the basis of the level of L-Val quartiles.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; L-Val, L-valine; MDA, malondialdehyde; T2DM, type 2 diabetes.