Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of insulin resistance and β-cell function among groups divided by LFC quartile

From: Association of [1H]-MRS quantified liver fat content with glucose metabolism status

Parameters

LFC < 5.89%

(n = 61)

5.89% ≤ LFC < 11.62%

(n = 61)

11.62% ≤ LFC < 16.26%

(n = 60)

16.26% ≤ LFC

(n = 60)

p value

FPG (mmol/l)

5.26 ± 1.00

6.28 ± 1.35a

6.99 ± 1.36bd

7.45 ± 1.09ce

0.000

2hPG (mmol/l)

6.70 (5.73, 9.59)

10.42 (8.01, 17.16)a

15.23 (10.49, 17.68)b

16.89 (12.90, 17.86)ce

0.000

Delta G30

4.23 ± 1.41

5.52 ± 1.59a

5.60 ± 1.58b

5.51 ± 1.58c

0.000

Delta Ins30

39.96 (18.02, 56.95)

24.03 (12.28, 47.62)

13.70 (5.87, 31.97)b

10.60 (4.67, 23.61)ce

0.000

Delta C30

2.69 (1.80, 4.27)

2.09 (1.10, 3.79)

1.40 (0.63, 2.80)b

1.05 (0.71, 1.78)ce

0.000

Ins30/G30 AUC

9.26 (4.49, 14.24)

4.49 (2.17, 9.55)a

2.36 (1.01, 6.39)b

2.11 (0.84, 4.08)ce

0.000

CP30/G30 AUC

0.65 (0.38, 1.06)

0.38 (0.19, 0.81)a

0.28 (0.12, 0.52)b

0.21 (0.11, 0.33)ce

0.000

Ins AUC/G AUC

5.52 (3.52, 7.79)

3.20 (1.33, 5.24)a

1.86 (1.20, 4.50)b

1.51 (1.04, 3.56)ce

0.000

CP AUC/G AUC

0.57 (0.38, 0.85)

0.44 (0.22, 0.70)

0.31 (0.19, 0.55)b

0.29 (0.17, 0.43)c

0.000

HOMA-IR

1.62 ± 0.58

1.98 ± 0.76

2.31 ± 0.78b

2.64 ± 1.14ce

0.000

HOMA-β

93.38 (56.90, 141.29)

55.61 (32.92, 94.99)a

40.48 (25.21, 78.90)b

34.74 (26.58, 56.84)c

0.000

Matsuda ISI

110.23 ± 42.91

95.46 ± 38.55

88.92 ± 34.31b

85.69 ± 36.26c

0.005

  1. AUC area under the curve, PG plasma glucose, FPG fasting plasma glucose, HOMA-IR homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance, HOMR-β homeostatic model assessment for β-cell function, LFC liver fat content, Matsuda ISI Matsuda insulin sensitivity index
  2. aSignificant difference in LFC < 5.89% versus 5.89% ≤ LFC < 11.62
  3. bSignificant difference in LFC < 5.89% versus 11.62% ≤ LFC < 16.26%
  4. cSignificant difference in LFC < 5.89% versus 16.26% ≤ LFC
  5. dSignificant difference in 5.89% ≤ LFC < 11.62 versus 11.62% ≤ LFC < 16.26%
  6. eSignificant difference in 5.89% ≤ LFC < 11.62 versus 16.26% ≤ LFC
  7. fSignificant difference in 11.62% ≤ LFC < 16.26% versus 16.26% ≤ LFC