TABLE 4.

Relationship between GGT/HDL-c ratio and the incident non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in different models.

Exposure	Crude model I (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model I (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model II (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model III (HR, 95% CI, P)
GGT/HDL-c ratio	1.030 (1.028, 1.032) < 0.001	1.021 (1.018, 1.023) < 0.001	1.014 (1.011, 1.017) < 0.001	1.007 (1.004, 1.010) < 0.001
GGT/HDL-c ratio (quartile)
Q1	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Q2	2.531 (2.010, 3.187) < 0.001	1.943 (1.542, 2.449) < 0.001	1.924 (1.525, 2.428) < 0.001	1.551 (1.225, 1.965) < 0.001
Q3	5.203 (4.200, 6.445) < 0.001	3.244 (2.613, 4.027) < 0.001	3.006 (2.412, 3.746) < 0.001	2.001 (1.592, 2.514) < 0.001
Q4	9.542 (7.755, 11.739) < 0.001	4.864 (3.938, 6.008) < 0.001	3.925 (3.145, 4.900) < 0.001	2.311 (1.830, 2.919) < 0.001
P for trend	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

Crude model: we did not adjust other covariates.

Model I: we adjusted age, DBP, sex, BMI, SBP.

Model II: we adjusted age, sex, SBP, BMI, DBP, ALT, ALP, ALB, TBIL, GLB, UA, FBG, TG, Scr, and LDL-c.

Model III: we adjusted age (smooth), sex, SBP (smooth), BMI (smooth), DBP (smooth), ALT (smooth), ALP (smooth), ALB (smooth), TBIL (smooth), TG (smooth), UA (smooth), FBG (smooth), TG (smooth), Scr, LDL-c (smooth).

HR, Hazard ratios; CI, confidence; Ref, reference; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.