TABLE 5.

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

Exposure	Model I (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model II (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model III (HR, 95% CI, P)	Model IV (HR, 95% CI, P)
GGT/HDL-c ratio	1.014 (1.011, 1.017) < 0.001	1.009 (1.006, 1.012) < 0.001	1.013 (1.009, 1.018) < 0.001	1.014 (1.011, 1.017) < 0.001
GGT/HDL-c ratio (quartile)
Q1	Ref	Ref	Ref	Ref
Q2	1.870 (1.466, 2.385) < 0.001	1.809 (1.432, 2.286) < 0.001	1.857 (1.449, 2.380) < 0.001	1.931 (1.521, 2.452) < 0.001
Q3	2.943 (2.338, 3.705) < 0.001	2.635 (2.107, 3.294) < 0.001	2.604 (2.045, 3.317) < 0.001	2.933 (2.339, 3.678) < 0.001
Q4	3.972 (3.151, 5.008) < 0.001	3.134 (2.491, 3.941) < 0.001	3.147 (2.449, 4.044) < 0.001	3.845 (3.060, 4.832) < 0.001
P for trend	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

Model I was sensitivity analysis in participants without FPG > 6.1 mmol/L (N = 11066). We adjusted age, sex, SBP, BMI, DBP, ALT, ALP, ALB, TBIL, GLB, UA, FBG, TG, Scr, and LDL-c.

Model II was sensitivity analysis in participants without ALT > 40 U/L (N = 11308). We adjusted age, sex, SBP, BMI, DBP, ALT, ALP, ALB, TBIL, GLB, UA, FBG, TG, Scr, and LDL-c.

Model III was sensitivity analysis in participants without TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L (N = 9446). We adjusted age, sex, SBP, BMI, DBP, ALT, ALP, ALB, TBIL, GLB, UA, FBG, TG, Scr, and LDL-c.

Model IV was sensitivity analysis in participants without eGFR < 60 mL/min^⋅1.73 m² (N = 10744). We adjusted age, sex, SBP, BMI, DBP, ALT, ALP, ALB, TBIL, GLB, UA, FBG, TG, Scr, and LDL-c.

HR, Hazard ratios; CI, confidence; Ref, reference; eGFR, evaluated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min^⋅1.73 m²); NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.