Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Comparison of triglyceride glucose index, and related parameters to predict insulin resistance in Korean adults: An analysis of the 2007-2010 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

  • Jinsook Lim,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea

  • Jimyung Kim,

    Roles Software, Validation

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea

  • Sun Hoe Koo,

    Roles Project administration, Resources

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea

  • Gye Cheol Kwon

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea


The triglyceride glucose (TyG) index, a product of triglyceride and fasting glucose, is a reliable marker for insulin resistance (IR). Obesity is also known to be closely related with IR. Recently, the efficiency of TyG-related markers that combine obesity markers with TyG index has been studied; however, earlier studies were limited in number and the results were inconsistent. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the efficiency of several combinations of TyG index and obesity indices, namely, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), in reflecting IR. Data were obtained from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007–2010. A total of 11,149 subjects (4,777 men and 6,372 women) were included. IR was defined as the homeostasis model assessment for IR (HOMA-IR) of above the 75th percentile for each gender. Logistic regression analysis was performed after adjusting for confounding factors, to compare and identify the associations of the 4 parameters (TyG index, TyG-BMI, TyG-WC, and TyG-WHtR) with IR. For each parameter, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of quartiles 2–4 were calculated and compared with quartile 1 as a reference. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted to evaluate the ability of each parameter to predict IR. The adjusted ORs of quartile 4 in comparison with quartile 1 (95% CIs) for IR were 7.60 (6.52–8.87) for TyG index, 12.82 (10.89–15.10) for TyG-BMI, 16.29 (13.70–19.38) for TyG-WC, and 14.86 (12.53–17.62) for TyG-WHtR. The areas under the ROC curve for each parameter were 0.690 for TyG index, 0.748 for TyG-BMI, 0.731 for TyG-WC, and 0.733 for TyG-WHtR. In conclusion, TyG-BMI was found to be superior to other parameters for IR prediction. We propose TyG-BMI as an alternative marker for assessing IR in clinical settings.


Insulin resistance (IR) is characterized by an inappropriate physiologic response in which insensitivity to insulin results in compensatory hyperinsulinemia [1]. IR is known to be a major risk factor for metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases [24]. Rapidly growing population with chronic diseases associated with IR are reported worldwide, including among the Korean population [5,6]. Thus, early detection of IR is crucial to prevent the manifestation of clinical diseases. The glucose clamp technique, first described by DeFronzo is considered as the gold standard for quantification of IR [7]. However, it is difficult to perform in routine laboratory because of its complexity and invasiveness [8]. To overcome these problems, the homeostasis model for IR (HOMA-IR) was developed in 1985 [9] and has been widely used for IR quantification. However, insulin measurement is still not readily available in many routine laboratories and entails standardization issues [10]. Consequently, several studies have explored methods that can easily predict IR in routine laboratory assessments and they proposed various markers such as lipid ratios and visceral adiposity index (VAI) [8,1116]. The triglyceride glucose (TyG) index, a product of fasting triglycerides and glucose, has also recently been suggested for IR estimation, and this measurement demonstrates improved efficiency compared to previous markers [8,17,18].

In addition to TyG index, obesity has been shown to be associated with IR. Obesity indices, namely, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) have been widely used because of their easy practical application. Several studies have evaluated TyG-related parameters that combined obesity indices and TyG index for IR or diabetes, such as TyG-BMI or TyG-WC, and found that they are more efficient than TyG index alone [19,20]; however, a major limitation of these studies is the small number of participants. Thus, additional studies are needed to compare these IR markers. In addition, no studies have yet been conducted using TyG index combined with WHtR. Therefore, in this study, we compared TyG index and TyG-related parameters (TyG-WC, TyG-BMI and TyG-WHtR) for the detection of IR.

Materials and methods

Study population

Data were obtained from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) covering the period 2007–2010. The KNHANES is an annual cross-sectional survey conducted by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. All participants were randomly selected, voluntarily enrolled in the survey and provided an informed consent. This survey was approved by the institutional review board of the Korea Centers for Disease Control (KCDC) [21]. The subjects of the present study were adults aged 20 years or older. Subjects with chronic liver or kidney disease, any type of cancer, a history of myocardial infarction, or stroke were excluded. Participants diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia and those taking regular medication were also excluded, as were participants with missing data (demographic, anthropometric, or laboratory), those who did not fast for at least 8 hours before testing and those with extreme BMI (≥ 40 kg/m2), TG (>500 mg/dL) or HDL (>100 mg/dL). Finally, a total of 11,149 subjects (4,777 men and 6,372 women) were included in our analysis.

Anthropometric measurements

Physical examinations were performed by trained staffs according to a standardized protocol. Body weight and height were measured with the subject wearing light indoor clothing and BMI was calculated using the formula: BMI = weight (kg) / height (m2). WC was measured midway between the costal margin and the iliac crest at the end of a normal expiration, and WHtR was calculated using the formula: WHtR = WC (cm)/ height (cm). Blood pressure (BP) was measured three times and the average values for systolic and diastolic BPs were used for analysis.

Laboratory measurements and calculations

Blood samples were obtained after at least an 8-hour overnight fast. The venous blood sample was then delivered to the central laboratory. Levels of fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were measured using an ADVIA 1650 chemistry analyzer (Siemens, Washington, DC, USA) in 2007, and a Hitachi 7600 automatic analyzer (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) from 2008 to 2010. For HDL-C, corrected values using the conversion equations recommended by the KCDC were used [22]. LDL-C was calculated using the Friedewald equation. Serum insulin was measured by 1470 Wizard gamma counter (Perkin-Elmer, Turku, Finland).

For quantification of IR, HOMA-IR was calculated as follows: HOMA-IR = fasting insulin (μU/dL) × fasting glucose (mg/dL) / 22.5. TyG index, TyG-WC, TyG-BMI were calculated using the formula published previously. The TyG index [17,18]: Ln[TG (mg/ dL) × fasting glucose (mg/dL)/2]. TyG-BMI, TyG-WC and TyG-WHtR indicate TyG index x BMI [20], TyG index x WC [20] and TyG index x WHtR, respectively.

Classification of variables

IR was defined as the homeostasis model assessment for IR (HOMA-IR) of above the 75th percentile for each gender [23,24]. Self-reported questionnaires were used to determine smoking status, alcohol consumption, and exercise habits. Current smoking was defined as subjects who were currently smoking and had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Alcohol drinking was defined as drinking at least twice a week during a year. Regular exercise was defined as exercising with moderate to vigorous intensity at least three days per week.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) and MedCalc Statistical Software version 18.6 (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Belgium). The data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, and as percentage for categorical variables. The independent sample t-test was used to compare continuous variables and the Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. For odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of various markers for IR, the stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the relation between IR as the dependent variable and various markers, by controlling confounding factors (age, gender, systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, smoking, drinking, and exercise). ORs and 95% CIs of quartiles 2–4 for each parameter were calculated and compared with quartile 1 as a reference. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the relative diagnostic strengths of these parameters for identifying IR. Pairwise comparisons between AUCs for the four parameters were performed according to DeLong et al [25]. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


A total of 11,149 participants were included in the study, including 8,362 without IR (Non-IR group) and 2,787 with IR (IR group). The anthropometric, biochemical, and clinical characteristics of participants by gender and presence of IR are summarized in Table 1. The mean ages of the non-IR and IR groups were 44.7 ± 14.9 and 44.5 ± 14.3 years, respectively. Age, height, smoking, drinking, and regular exercise were not significantly different between non-IR and IR groups. However, mean body weight, waist circumference, BMI, WHtR, systolic and diastolic BPs, glucose, total cholesterol, TG, LDL, insulin, HOMA-IR, TyG index, TyG-BMI, TyG-WC, and TyG-WHtR, were significantly higher while the mean HDL level was significantly lower in the IR group than in the non-IR group.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants according to gender and presence of insulin resistance.

The ORs and 95% CIs for IR were progressively increased across quartiles of each parameter both before and after adjustment (Table 2). TyG-WC presented the highest ORs and 95% CIs for IR, reaching 16.29 (95% CI 13.70–19.38) for the top quartile compared with the bottom quartile (P < 0.001), followed by TyG-WHtR (Q4 14.86, 95% CI 12.53–17.62) and TyG-BMI (Q4 12.82, 95% CI 10.89–15.10).

Table 2. Odds ratios and adjusted odds ratios for insulin resistance in quartiles of each parameter.

The results of ROC curve analyses and AUCs with their corresponding 95% CIs for TyG index, TyG-BMI, TyG-WC, and TyG-WHtR, are shown in Table 3 and Fig 1. TyG-BMI showed the largest AUC for IR detection (0.748, 95% CI 0.740–0.756), followed by TyG-WHtR (0.733, 95% CI 0.725–0.742) and TyG-WC (0.731, 95% CI 0.722–0.739) in all subjects. When analyzed by gender, TyG-BMI showed the largest AUC in both males and females (0.769, 95% CI 0.757–0.781, and 0.745, 95% CI 0.734–0.756, respectively) suggesting that TyG-BMI has the best discriminative power to predict IR when compared to other parameters, in both genders.

Table 3. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for each parameter for predicting insulin resistance.

Fig 1. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of each parameter for predicting insulin resistance.

(A) ROC curve for predicting insulin resistance in all subjects. (B) ROC curve for predicting insulin resistance in male. (C) ROC curve for predicting insulin resistance in female. Abbreviations: TyG index, a product of triglyceride and fasting glucose; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; WHtR, waist-to-height ratio.


In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated and compared four parameters of IR: TyG index, TyG-BMI, TyG-WC, and TyG-WHtR. Overall, the combination of obesity indices with TyG index showed better results than TyG index alone. Moreover, we found that TyG-BMI, a combination of TyG index and BMI, performed better than the other parameters with a higher odds ratio and the largest AUC of 0.748 in all subjects.

IR is known to be the core pathological mechanism for type 2 diabetes, and to precede the diagnosis of type 2 DM [26,27]. Therefore, detection of IR for people at risk is important. There have been many attempts to detect IR at a lower cost and by a simpler method to overcome the practical limitations of the glucose clamp technique, and high cost and unavailability of insulin measurement required for HOMA-IR in routine laboratories [11,13,15,28]. Among these, the TyG index proposed by Guerrero-Romero et al. has shown high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of IR and therefore it was considered the reliable marker for IR in several studies [8,17,18]. IR, by definition, is a state of high insulin levels due to insulin insensitivity, which correlates well with triglycerides levels [29]. Indeed, hypertriglyceridemia may be related to the increased transport of free fatty acids to the liver, resulting in an increase in hepatic glucose output [30]. Therefore, TyG index, a product of triglycerides and glucose, can predict insulin resistance better than other available markers. In addition to TyG index, the association between obesity and IR is also well established. Accordingly, a combination of TyG index and obesity indices can be expected to predict IR better than TyG index alone.

In our study, the performance of TyG index combined with obesity indices was considerably better than the performance of TyG index alone. Of the parameters evaluated, we found that TyG-BMI showed the best discriminative ability. Visceral (intra-abdominal) fat deposits are known to play a more important roles in the development of IR than subcutaneous fat deposits, because they produce more fatty acids and secrete inflammatory cytokines and adipokines [20,3032]. Accordingly, when WC or WHtR, markers of visceral adiposity, are combined with TyG index, they should be expected to predict IR more successfully than BMI. However, in our study, a combination of TyG index and BMI, a general obesity marker, gave the best predictive value for IR. Abdominal obesity includes both subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue, of which the latter is known to have more effect on IR [33]. However, WC cannot differentiate subcutaneous and visceral fat, and therefore it cannot fully represent visceral fat [20]. Furthermore, WC does not reflect the effect of height on cardiometabolic risk [34,35], causing its efficacy declines for individuals who are tall or short [36]. On the other hand, WHtR has been reported to outperform WC and BMI in relation to the prediction of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk by reflecting height, particularly in Asians [37,38]. Therefore, WHtR is considered an alternative anthropometric marker for visceral obesity [39]. However, other studies have shown that WHtR has similar performance to BMI or WC in predicting cardiovascular risk [40,41]. In short, for the reasons mentioned above, we cannot conclude that one obesity index is better than others. This is consistent with recent studies combining TyG index and obesity indices, which reported conflicting results for predictive value of TyG-related markers. In addition, Er et al reported that, TyG-BMI was stronger predictor of IR than TyG-WC in a recent study involving 511 individuals [19]. On the other hand, Zheng et al., found that TyG-WC was the best marker for the detection of prediabetes and diabetes [20]. Therefore, the superiority of obesity indices remains controversial, and further additional studies on TyG related markers are required.

HOMA-IR is widely used for the quantification of IR, but its cutoffs are inconsistent between studies [42]. The cutoff used for IR in this study was the 75th percentile in men and women from the study population, which resulted in 2,662 men and 2,514 women respectively, and the cutoffs for men and women are generally higher than in other studies [23,24,42]. Therefore, whether our findings can be applied to the general population or to other races should be investigated through further studies.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess TyG-WHtR in addition to TyG-BMI and TyG-WC as markers of IR across a large number of participants. However, our study has several limitations. First, because of its cross-sectional design, the associations identified are not prospective, and causality cannot be determined. Further longitudinal studies are necessary to confirm whether TyG-BMI can predict the future occurrence of IR. Second, because the study sample consists primarily of Koreans, the results cannot be generalized to other ethnicities. Given the variability of TG levels according to ethnicity, further research is required to evaluate TyG-BMI, TyG-WC, and TyG-WHtR as general predictors of IR. Considering that recent studies on TyG-BMI have been extended to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [43], subclinical atherosclerosis [44], and coronary artery disease [45], TyG-related markers deserve further attention with additional studies to identify their associations with risk of cardiovascular disease.

In conclusion, TyG-BMI is a valuable marker to predict IR in healthy Koreans in a minimally invasive and inexpensive manner. It can be easily calculated because required values can be obtained from routine laboratory tests. As such, we recommend the application of TyG-BMI in risk assessments for IR in clinical practice and future epidemiologic studies.


  1. 1. Cerf ME. Beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance. Front Endocrinol. 2013;4. pmid:23542897
  2. 2. Xia C, Li R, Zhang S, Gong L, Ren W, Wang Z, et al. Lipid accumulation product is a powerful index for recognizing insulin resistance in non-diabetic individuals. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012;66: 1035–1038. pmid:22781025
  3. 3. Cheng YH, Tsao YC, Tzeng IS, Chuang HH, Li WC, Tung TH, et al. Body mass index and waist circumference are better predictors of insulin resistance than total body fat percentage in middle-aged and elderly Taiwanese. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96: e8126. pmid:28953643
  4. 4. Gast KB, Tjeerdema N, Stijnen T, Smit JW, Dekkers OM. Insulin resistance and risk of incident cardiovascular events in adults without diabetes: meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7: e52036. pmid:23300589
  5. 5. Zimmet P, Alberti KG, Shaw J. Global and societal implications of the diabetes epidemic. Nature. 2001;414: 782–787. pmid:11742409
  6. 6. Park HS, Park CY, Oh SW, Yoo HJ. Prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome in Korean adults. Obes Rev. 2008;9: 104–107. pmid:17986177
  7. 7. DeFronzo RA, Tobin JD, Andres R. Glucose clamp technique: a method for quantifying insulin secretion and resistance. Am J Physiol. 1979;237: E214–223. pmid:382871
  8. 8. Du T, Yuan G, Zhang M, Zhou X, Sun X, Yu X. Clinical usefulness of lipid ratios, visceral adiposity indicators, and the triglycerides and glucose index as risk markers of insulin resistance. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2014;13: 146. pmid:25326814
  9. 9. Matthews DR, Hosker JP, Rudenski AS, Naylor BA, Treacher DF, Turner RC. Homeostasis model assessment: Insulin resistance and beta cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia. 1985;28: 412–419. pmid:3899825
  10. 10. Miller WG, Thienpont LM, Van Uytfanghe K, Clark PM, Lindstedt P, Nilsson G, et al. Toward standardization of insulin immunoassays. Clin Chem. 2009;55: 1011–1018. pmid:19325009
  11. 11. Ren X, Chen ZA., Zheng S, Han T, Li Y, Liu W, et al. Association between triglyceride to HDL-C Ratio (TG/HDL-C) and insulin resistance in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0154345. pmid:27115999
  12. 12. Kimm H, Lee SW, Lee HS, Shim KW, Cho CY, Yun JE, et al. Associations between lipid measures and metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and adiponectin. Circ J. 2010;74: 931–937. pmid:20215701
  13. 13. Chiang JK, Lai NS, Chang JK, Koo M. Predicting insulin resistance using the triglyceride-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio in Taiwanese adults. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2011;10: 93. pmid:22004541
  14. 14. Amato MC, Giordano C, Galia M, Criscimanna A, Vitabile S, Midiri M, et al. Visceral Adiposity Index: a reliable indicator of visceral fat function associated with cardiometabolic risk. Diabetes Care. 2010;33: 920–922. pmid:20067971
  15. 15. He J, He S, Liu K, Wang Y, Shi D, Chen X. The TG/HDL-C ratio might be a surrogate for insulin resistance in Chinese nonobese women. Int J Endocrinol. 2014;2014: 105168. pmid:25136362
  16. 16. Kim-Dorner SJ, Deuster PA, Zeno SA, Remaley AT, Poth M. Should triglycerides and the triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio be used as surrogates for insulin resistance? Metabolism. 2010;59: 299–304. pmid:19796777
  17. 17. Guerrero-Romero F, Simental-Mendía LE, González-Ortiz M, Martínez-Abundis E, Ramos-Zavala MG, Hernández-González SO, et al. The product of triglycerides and glucose, a simple measure of insulin sensitivity. Comparison with the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95: 3347–3351. pmid:20484475
  18. 18. Simental-Mendía LE, Rodríguez-Morán M, Guerrero-Romero F. The product of fasting glucose and triglycerides as surrogate for identifying insulin resistance in apparently healthy subjects. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2008;6: 299–304. pmid:19067533
  19. 19. Er LK, Wu S, Chou HH, Hsu LA, Teng MS, Sun YC, et al. Triglyceride glucose-body mass index is a simple and clinically useful surrogate marker for insulin resistance in nondiabetic individuals. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0149731. pmid:26930652
  20. 20. Zheng S, Shi S, Ren X, Han T, Li Y, Chen Y, et al. Triglyceride glucose-waist circumference, a novel and effective predictor of diabetes in first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetes patients: cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. J Transl Med. 2016;14: 260. pmid:27604550
  21. 21. Kweon S, Kim Y, Jang MJ, Kim Y, Kim K, Choi S, et al. Data resource profile: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43: 69–77. pmid:24585853
  22. 22. Yun YM, Song J, Ji M, Kim JH, Kim Y, Park T, et al. Calibration of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 2008 to 2015. Ann Lab Med. 2017;37: 1–8. pmid:27834059
  23. 23. Lee S, Choi S, Kim HJ, Chung YS, Lee KW, Lee HC, et al. Cutoff values of surrogate measures of insulin resistance for metabolic syndrome in Korean non-diabetic adults. J Korean Med Sci. 2006;21: 695–700. pmid:16891815
  24. 24. Radikova Z, Koska J, Huckova M, Ksinantova L, Imrich R, Vigas M, et al. Insulin sensitivity indices: a proposal of cut-off points for simple identification of insulin-resistant subjects. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2006;114: 249–256. pmid:16804799
  25. 25. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44: 837–845. pmid:3203132
  26. 26. Taylor R. Insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2012;61: 778–779. pmid:22442298
  27. 27. Fonseca VA. Defining and characterizing the progression of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32: S151–S156. pmid:19875543
  28. 28. Kang HT, Yoon JH, Kim JY, Ahn SK, Linton JA, Koh SB, et al. The association between the ratio of triglyceride to HDL-C and insulin resistance according to waist circumference in a rural Korean population. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2012;22: 1054–1060. pmid:21764572
  29. 29. Irace C, Carallo C, Scavelli FB, De Franceschi MS, Esposito T, Tripolino C, et al. Markers of insulin resistance and carotid atherosclerosis. A comparison of the homeostasis model assessment and triglyceride glucose index. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67: 665–672. pmid:23758445
  30. 30. Kahn BB, Flier JS. Obesity and insulin resistance. J Clin Invest. 2000;106: 473–481. pmid:10953022
  31. 31. Boden G, Shulman GI. Free fatty acids in obesity and type 2 diabetes: defining their role in the development of insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction. Eur J Clin Invest. 2002;32 Suppl 3: 14–23.
  32. 32. Kwon H, Pessin JE. Adipokines mediate inflammation and insulin resistance. Front Endocrinol. 2013;4:71. pmid:23781214
  33. 33. McLaughlin T, Lamendola C, Liu A, Abbasi F. Preferential fat deposition in subcutaneous versus visceral depots is associated with insulin sensitivity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96: E1756–E1760. pmid:21865361
  34. 34. Schneider HJ, Klotsche J, Silber S, Stalla GK, Wittchen H-U. Measuring abdominal obesity: effects of height on distribution of cardiometabolic risk factors risk using waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio. Diabetes Care. 2011;34: e7. pmid:21193616
  35. 35. Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Sankaranarayanan S, Noureldin M, Singh K. Body mass index as a predictor of complications and mortality after lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39: 798–804. pmid:24480950
  36. 36. Misra A, Vikram NK, Gupta R, Pandey RM, Wasir JS, Gupta VP. Waist circumference cutoff points and action levels for Asian Indians for identification of abdominal obesity. Int J Obes. 2006;30: 106–111. pmid:16189502
  37. 37. Yang H, Xin Z, Feng JP, Yang JK. Waist-to-height ratio is better than body mass index and waist circumference as a screening criterion for metabolic syndrome in Han Chinese adults: Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96: e8192. pmid:28953680
  38. 38. Zhang ZQ, Deng J, He LP, Ling WH, Su YX, Chen YM. Comparison of various anthropometric and body fat indices in identifying cardiometabolic disturbances in Chinese men and women. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e70893. pmid:23951031
  39. 39. Li WC, Chen IC, Chang YC, Loke SS, Wang SH, Hsiao KY. Waist-to-height ratio, waist circumference, and body mass index as indices of cardiometabolic risk among 36,642 Taiwanese adults. Eur J Nutr. 2013;52: 57–65. pmid:22160169
  40. 40. Park SH, Choi SJ, Lee KS, Park HY. Waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio as predictors of cardiovascular disease risk in Korean adults. Circ J. 2009;73: 1643–1650. pmid:19638708
  41. 41. Hori A, Nanri A, Sakamoto N, Kuwahara K, Nagahama S, Kato N, et al. Comparison of body mass index, waist circumference, and waist-to-height ratio for predicting the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors by age in Japanese workers. Circ J. 2014;78: 1160–1168. pmid:24662439
  42. 42. Esteghamati A, Ashraf H, Khalilzadeh O, Zandieh A, Nakhjavani M, Rashidi A, et al. Optimal cut-off of homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome: third national surveillance of risk factors of non-communicable diseases in Iran (SuRFNCD-2007). Nutr Metab. 2010;7: 26. pmid:20374655
  43. 43. Zhang S, Du T, Zhang J, Lu H, Lin X, Xie J, et al. The triglyceride and glucose index (TyG) is an effective biomarker to identify nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Lipids Health Dis. 2017;16: 15. pmid:28103934
  44. 44. Lambrinoudaki I, Kazani MV, Armeni E, Georgiopoulos G, Tampakis K, Rizos D, et al. The TyG Index as a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness in lean and overweight postmenopausal women. Heart Lung Circ. 2018;27: 716–724. pmid:28690023
  45. 45. Lee EY, Yang HK, Lee J, Kang B, Yang Y, Lee SH, et al. Triglyceride glucose index, a marker of insulin resistance, is associated with coronary artery stenosis in asymptomatic subjects with type 2 diabetes. Lipids Health Dis. 2016;15: 155. pmid:27633375