Dyslipidemia,Hypothyroidism and Diabetes
Aditya , Anupam Singh
05/06/2019
Summary Demographic Table
Table 1 . summary Distribution of all variables ,Groupwise
| Dependent: Group | DM | DM+HYPOTHYROID | DM+SCH | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean (SD) | 34.0 (9.6) | 38.4 (7.7) | 38.6 (7.2) | 0.106 |
| Sex | Female | 15 (33.3) | 15 (33.3) | 15 (33.3) | 1.000 |
| Male | 10 (33.3) | 10 (33.3) | 10 (33.3) | ||
| ALT | Mean (SD) | 38.3 (4.0) | 73.8 (10.7) | 49.0 (3.9) | <0.001 |
| AST | Mean (SD) | 18.3 (3.2) | 22.0 (3.4) | 20.6 (2.9) | 0.001 |
| Urea | Mean (SD) | 30.3 (4.7) | 29.9 (5.1) | 28.0 (4.6) | 0.264 |
| Creatinine | Mean (SD) | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.2) | 0.591 |
| Weight | Mean (SD) | 60.0 (2.1) | 69.8 (3.4) | 62.2 (2.5) | <0.001 |
| BMI | Mean (SD) | 25.7 (1.7) | 26.9 (2.1) | 26.7 (2.2) | 0.054 |
| FBS | Mean (SD) | 175.5 (15.7) | 171.3 (24.1) | 166.5 (16.4) | 0.205 |
| PPBS | Mean (SD) | 223.3 (30.2) | 219.6 (26.3) | 222.7 (30.5) | 0.859 |
| HbA1c | Mean (SD) | 8.1 (0.6) | 8.0 (0.9) | 7.9 (0.6) | 0.698 |
| TSH | Mean (SD) | 2.8 (0.6) | 19.9 (3.8) | 8.4 (0.7) | <0.001 |
| T3 | Mean (SD) | 121.9 (11.8) | 37.0 (8.9) | 111.0 (11.1) | <0.001 |
| T4 | Mean (SD) | 8.1 (1.0) | 2.5 (0.8) | 7.7 (1.2) | <0.001 |
| TC | Mean (SD) | 240.5 (9.1) | 314.7 (17.0) | 264.5 (6.5) | <0.001 |
| LDL | Mean (SD) | 250.1 (18.4) | 278.1 (26.6) | 257.1 (15.8) | <0.001 |
| HDL | Mean (SD) | 37.4 (5.4) | 26.2 (7.0) | 35.1 (4.6) | <0.001 |
| TG | Mean (SD) | 209.0 (11.1) | 234.5 (19.4) | 213.2 (12.3) | <0.001 |
| VLDL | Mean (SD) | 35.6 (6.6) | 50.8 (5.7) | 40.4 (5.3) | <0.001 |
| LipoproteinA | Mean (SD) | 18.8 (5.8) | 34.6 (8.6) | 24.6 (8.2) | <0.001 |
| Smoker | Non-smoker | 17 (31.5) | 18 (33.3) | 19 (35.2) | 0.820 |
| Smoker | 8 (38.1) | 7 (33.3) | 6 (28.6) | ||
| SBP | Mean (SD) | 139.2 (9.5) | 144.2 (12.7) | 144.1 (9.5) | 0.119 |
| DBP | Mean (SD) | 88.6 (8.4) | 91.4 (9.9) | 89.8 (11.6) | 0.490 |
| ASCVD | Mean (SD) | 4.7 (5.2) | 19.6 (24.1) | 7.4 (6.9) | 0.001 |
Demographic Variables
Distribution of Demographic Variables in Our Population
Age
Fig.1 Plot of Age distribution across Groups
The Dodged bar chart above represents individual counts representing frequency of age_grp categories 40-50,30-40,50-60,20-30 and 10-20 in categories DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM belonging to group Group. Subgroup 20-30 has highest percentage 8/25 ( 32 % ) in group DM . Subgroup 30-40 has highest percentage 12/25 ( 48 % ) in group DM+SCH . Subgroup 30-40 has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . To formally check for association between groups we performed pearson chi-square test .we found a Significant association between age_grp and Group. The chi-square statistic was 16.29 . The degree of freedom was 8 and P value was 0.04 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown belowTable 2
| Group | age_grp | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | 2 | 2/25 ( 8 %) | 1.7% - 23.27% |
| DM | 20-30 | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| DM | 30-40 | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| DM | 40-50 | 6 | 6/25 ( 24 %) | 10.69% - 42.94% |
| DM | 50-60 | 1 | 1/25 ( 4 %) | 0.44% - 17.21% |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | 2 | 2/25 ( 8 %) | 1.7% - 23.27% |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | 12 | 12/25 ( 48 %) | 29.54% - 66.9% |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | 11 | 11/25 ( 44 %) | 26.09% - 63.22% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | 2 | 2/25 ( 8 %) | 1.7% - 23.27% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | 6 | 6/25 ( 24 %) | 10.69% - 42.94% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | 2 | 2/25 ( 8 %) | 1.7% - 23.27% |
Table 3
| DM | DM+SCH | DM+HYPOTHYROID | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10-20 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 20-30 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
| 30-40 | 8 | 12 | 15 |
| 40-50 | 6 | 11 | 6 |
| 50-60 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Gender
Figure 2 Sex Distribution in Our Population
The Dodged bar chart above represents individual counts representing frequency of Sex categories Male and Female in categories DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM belonging to group Group. Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+SCH . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . To formally check for association between groups we performed pearson chi-square test .we found a Non-significant association between Sex and Group. The chi-square statistic was 0 . The degree of freedom was 2 and P value was 1 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown belowTable 5
| Group | Sex | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM | Male | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
| DM+SCH | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM+SCH | Male | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Male | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
Table 6
| DM | DM+SCH | DM+HYPOTHYROID | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Male | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Smoker
Figure 3 Distribution Of smokers in Our Population
The Dodged bar chart above represents individual counts representing frequency of Smoker categories Smoker and Non-smoker in categories DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM belonging to group Group. Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 17/25 ( 68 % ) in group DM . Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 19/25 ( 76 % ) in group DM+SCH . Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 18/25 ( 72 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . To formally check for association between groups we performed pearson chi-square test .we found a Non-significant association between Smoker and Group. The chi-square statistic was 0.4 . The degree of freedom was 2 and P value was 0.82 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown belowTable 6
| Group | Smoker | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | Non-smoker | 17 | 17/25 ( 68 %) | 48.54% - 83.56% |
| DM | Smoker | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| DM+SCH | Non-smoker | 19 | 19/25 ( 76 %) | 57.06% - 89.31% |
| DM+SCH | Smoker | 6 | 6/25 ( 24 %) | 10.69% - 42.94% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Non-smoker | 18 | 18/25 ( 72 %) | 52.72% - 86.51% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Smoker | 7 | 7/25 ( 28 %) | 13.49% - 47.28% |
Table 7
| DM | DM+SCH | DM+HYPOTHYROID | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-smoker | 17 | 19 | 18 |
| Smoker | 8 | 6 | 7 |
Outcomes Of Interest
LDL
Figure 4 Boxplot Of Distribution Of LDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of LDL in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of LDL are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of LDL and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of LDL .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean LDL of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 8 Summary Table Of LDL within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 250.084 | 18.398 | 252.609 | 199.239 | 280.388 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 257.069 | 15.822 | 256.834 | 229.118 | 287.506 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 278.111 | 26.600 | 272.752 | 229.961 | 334.510 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on LDL. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.255 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean LDL in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 6.98 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -7.09 - 21.06 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.46 . The mean LDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 28.03 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 13.96 - 42.1 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM+SCH . The difference was 21.04 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 6.97 - 35.11 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 9 Post Hoc test of LDL difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | 6.98 | -7.09 - 21.06 | 0.46 | Non-significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | 28.03 | 13.96 - 42.1 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | 21.04 | 6.97 - 35.11 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 5 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of LDL in our Population
Table 10 Age-Sex Distribution Of LDL in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( LDL ) | SD ( LDL ) | Median ( LDL ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 249.91 | 11.34 | 249.91 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 259.81 | 11.77 | 261.23 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 252.73 | 19.83 | 247.80 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 254.96 | 19.5 | 261.91 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 239.79 | 20.57 | 239.79 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 242.41 | 29.75 | 251.50 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 235.81 | 3.72 | 235.81 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 251.52 | 251.52 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 262.42 | 16.91 | 262.42 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 251.56 | 16.34 | 254.19 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 259.06 | 9.53 | 259.40 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 258.86 | 22.26 | 259.63 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 258.49 | 15.5 | 252.67 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 267.88 | 6.88 | 267.88 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 277.03 | 23.9 | 277.73 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 278.25 | 18.64 | 274.90 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 251.19 | 30.03 | 251.19 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 294.65 | 42.78 | 298.84 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 286.65 | 36.44 | 286.65 |
TRIGLYCERIDES
Figure 6 Boxplot Of Distribution Of LDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of TG in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of TG are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of TG and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of TG .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean TG of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 11 Summary Table Of Triglyceride within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 208.96 | 11.145 | 208 | 187 | 239 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 213.24 | 12.296 | 216 | 194 | 235 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 234.48 | 19.380 | 232 | 204 | 269 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on TG. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.374 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean TG in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 4.28 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -5.69 - 14.25 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.56 . The mean TG in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 25.52 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 15.55 - 35.49 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TG in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM+SCH . The difference was 21.24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 11.27 - 31.21 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 12 Post Hoc test of Triglyceride difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | 4.28 | -5.69 - 14.25 | 0.56 | Non-significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | 25.52 | 15.55 - 35.49 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | 21.24 | 11.27 - 31.21 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 7 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of Triglycerides in our Population
Table 13 Age-Sex Distribution Of Triglycerides in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( LDL ) | SD ( LDL ) | Median ( LDL ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 249.91 | 11.34 | 249.91 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 259.81 | 11.77 | 261.23 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 252.73 | 19.83 | 247.80 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 254.96 | 19.5 | 261.91 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 239.79 | 20.57 | 239.79 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 242.41 | 29.75 | 251.50 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 235.81 | 3.72 | 235.81 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 251.52 | 251.52 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 262.42 | 16.91 | 262.42 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 251.56 | 16.34 | 254.19 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 259.06 | 9.53 | 259.40 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 258.86 | 22.26 | 259.63 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 258.49 | 15.5 | 252.67 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 267.88 | 6.88 | 267.88 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 277.03 | 23.9 | 277.73 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 278.25 | 18.64 | 274.90 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 251.19 | 30.03 | 251.19 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 294.65 | 42.78 | 298.84 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 286.65 | 36.44 | 286.65 |
HDL
Figure 8 Boxplot Of Distribution Of HDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of HDL in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of HDL are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of HDL and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of HDL .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean HDL of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 14 Summary Table Of HDL within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 250.084 | 18.398 | 252.609 | 199.239 | 280.388 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 257.069 | 15.822 | 256.834 | 229.118 | 287.506 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 278.111 | 26.600 | 272.752 | 229.961 | 334.510 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on HDL. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.424 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean HDL in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly lower than Group DM . The difference was -2.24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -6.14 - 1.66 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.36 . The mean HDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly lower than Group DM . The difference was -11.2 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -15.1 - -7.3 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean HDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly lower than Group DM+SCH . The difference was -8.96 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -12.86 - -5.06 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 15 Post Hoc test of HDL difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | -2.24 | -6.14 - 1.66 | 0.36 | Non-significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | -11.20 | -15.1 - -7.3 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | -8.96 | -12.86 - -5.06 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 9 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of LDL in our Population
Table 16 Age-Sex Distribution Of LDL in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( LDL ) | SD ( LDL ) | Median ( LDL ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 249.91 | 11.34 | 249.91 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 259.81 | 11.77 | 261.23 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 252.73 | 19.83 | 247.80 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 254.96 | 19.5 | 261.91 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 239.79 | 20.57 | 239.79 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 242.41 | 29.75 | 251.50 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 235.81 | 3.72 | 235.81 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 251.52 | 251.52 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 262.42 | 16.91 | 262.42 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 251.56 | 16.34 | 254.19 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 259.06 | 9.53 | 259.40 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 258.86 | 22.26 | 259.63 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 258.49 | 15.5 | 252.67 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 267.88 | 6.88 | 267.88 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 277.03 | 23.9 | 277.73 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 278.25 | 18.64 | 274.90 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 251.19 | 30.03 | 251.19 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 294.65 | 42.78 | 298.84 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 286.65 | 36.44 | 286.65 |
Lipoprotein A
Figure 10 Boxplot Of Distribution Of Lipoprotein A in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of LipoproteinA in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of LipoproteinA are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of LipoproteinA and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of LipoproteinA .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean LipoproteinA of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 17 Summary Table Of Lipoprotein A within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 18.80 | 5.781 | 20 | 5 | 31 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 24.60 | 8.201 | 24 | 8 | 41 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 34.64 | 8.597 | 35 | 14 | 56 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on LipoproteinA. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.434 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 5.8 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 0.64 - 10.96 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.02 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 15.84 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 10.68 - 21 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM+SCH . The difference was 10.04 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 4.88 - 15.2 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 18 Post Hoc test of Lipoprotein A difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | 5.80 | 0.64 - 10.96 | 0.02 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | 15.84 | 10.68 - 21 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | 10.04 | 4.88 - 15.2 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 11 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of Lipoprotein A in our Population
Table 19 Age-Sex Distribution Of LipoproteinA in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( LipoproteinA ) | SD ( LipoproteinA ) | Median ( LipoproteinA ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 21.00 | 1.41 | 21.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 19.50 | 10.88 | 21.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 20.75 | 5.74 | 20.5 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 18.00 | 5.93 | 18.5 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 14.50 | 0.71 | 14.5 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 18.50 | 4.2 | 18.0 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 17.50 | 6.36 | 17.5 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 21.00 | 21.0 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 17.00 | 9.9 | 17.0 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 25.71 | 7.04 | 25.0 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 28.40 | 8.96 | 31.0 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 23.00 | 10.81 | 22.5 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 24.20 | 5.02 | 26.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 40.50 | 4.95 | 40.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 35.78 | 6.55 | 37.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 33.67 | 7.09 | 31.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 21.50 | 10.61 | 21.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 40.25 | 10.78 | 36.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 28.50 | 7.78 | 28.5 |
TOTAL CHOLESTEROL
Figure 10 Boxplot Of Distribution Of Total Cholesterol in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of TC in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of TC are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of TC and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of TC .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean TC of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 20 Summary Table Of Total Cholesterol within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 240.52 | 9.111 | 241 | 222 | 263 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 264.52 | 6.475 | 264 | 249 | 279 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 314.68 | 17.012 | 318 | 273 | 344 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on TC. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.878 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean TC in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 16.05 - 31.95 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 74.16 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 66.21 - 82.11 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM+SCH . The difference was 50.16 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 42.21 - 58.11 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 21 Post Hoc test of Total Cholesterol difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | 24.00 | 16.05 - 31.95 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | 74.16 | 66.21 - 82.11 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | 50.16 | 42.21 - 58.11 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 13 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of Total Cholesterol in our Population
Table 22 Age-Sex Distribution Of Total Cholesterol in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( TC ) | SD ( TC ) | Median ( TC ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 245.50 | 13.44 | 245.5 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 241.75 | 17.25 | 241.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 240.50 | 6.61 | 238.0 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 239.17 | 6.01 | 241.5 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 242.00 | 2.83 | 242.0 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 233.50 | 7.59 | 232.5 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 244.00 | 1.41 | 244.0 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 252.00 | 252.0 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 263.00 | 1.41 | 263.0 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 261.29 | 6.29 | 264.0 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 267.20 | 7.05 | 266.0 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 266.00 | 6.2 | 266.0 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 265.20 | 7.86 | 261.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 328.50 | 2.12 | 328.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 316.33 | 14.7 | 320.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 307.17 | 10.93 | 310.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 286.00 | 18.39 | 286.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 330.25 | 10.05 | 328.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 313.50 | 24.75 | 313.5 |
ASCVD
Figure 14 Boxplot Of Distribution Of ASCVD Risk Score in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of ASCVD in 3 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH and DM respectively .The individual jittered data points of ASCVD are overlaid over transparent Boxplot for better visualisation.
We see distribution of data in individual sub-groups of Group based on these box-plots. The lower edge of box plot represents -first quartile (Q1), Horizontal bar represents the median, Upper edge represnts third quartile (Q3), Two black lines (whiskers) emanating from box-plots signify range of non-outlier data for the particular sub-group. Lower whisker represents minimum(Q1- 1.5 *interquartile range) non-outlier limit of ASCVD and upper whisker represnts maximum(Q1+1.5*interquartile range) of ASCVD .Any data beyond whiskers of box-plots represents outliers in the sub-groups
The big brown point in the box-plots represents mean ASCVD of 3 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself
Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table belowTable 23 Summary Table Of ASCVD Risk Score within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 25 | 4.732 | 5.173 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 22.7 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 7.428 | 6.854 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 27.7 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 19.560 | 24.069 | 7.4 | 2.3 | 93.7 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Group on ASCVD. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(2,72)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.166 .Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 3 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean ASCVD in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 2.7 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -7.29 - 12.68 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.8 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 14.83 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 4.84 - 24.81 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM+SCH . The difference was 12.13 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 2.15 - 22.12 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.01 . Table describing these tests with Tukey's Post-Hoc correction is described belowTable 24 Post Hoc test of ASCVD difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ DM+SCH ] - [ DM ] | 2.70 | -7.29 - 12.68 | 0.8 | Non-significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM ] | 14.83 | 4.84 - 24.81 | <0.001 | Significant |
| [ DM+HYPOTHYROID ] - [ DM+SCH ] | 12.13 | 2.15 - 22.12 | 0.01 | Significant |
Figure 15 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of ASCVD in our Population
Table 25 Age-Sex Distribution Of ASCVD in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( ASCVD ) | SD ( ASCVD ) | Median ( ASCVD ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 10-20 | Male | 2 | 1.65 | 0.64 | 1.65 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 1.23 | 0.79 | 1.05 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 4 | 4.12 | 0.83 | 4.25 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 1.95 | 0.92 | 2.00 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 8.95 | 8.27 | 8.95 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 5.03 | 2.42 | 4.85 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 15.95 | 9.55 | 15.95 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 12.00 | 12.00 | |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 1.40 | 0.14 | 1.40 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 2.96 | 3.6 | 1.60 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 9.44 | 2.91 | 9.10 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 5.43 | 3.95 | 4.25 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 16.48 | 8.23 | 12.90 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 3.45 | 0.07 | 3.45 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 3.89 | 1.76 | 3.10 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 21.62 | 9.86 | 16.80 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 4.60 | 1.7 | 4.60 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 63.27 | 25.04 | 63.50 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 27.55 | 23.12 | 27.55 |
Selected Correlations
TSH and LDL
Figure showing Correlation between TSH and LDL
The scatter plots above show relationship between TSH on X axis and LDL on Y axis. Graphically, we see that as TSH increases, LDL also increases .
On a formal statistical linear regression analysis, we that line of best fit (blue line signifying line with least square difference) also has a positive slope implying a positive correlation.
The gray shaded error around blue line signifies 95% confidence interval of linear regression line of best fit.
The correlation between two variables is Significant . The Pearson's correlation between TSH and LDL is 0.56 with 95% Confidence Interval of 0.38 to 0.7. the t statistic is 5.79 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 73.
In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(73)= 5.79, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.56 95% C.I. [0.38-0.7]. n= 75. The correlation is summmarised in table belowTable 26. Table Summarizing correlation between TSH and LDL
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Degree of Freedom | T statistic | Correlation | 95 % C.I. | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSH | LDL | 73 | 5.79 | 0.56 | 0.38-0.7 | <0.001 |
Table 27 Table with summary statistics of TSH and LDL
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDL | 75 | 261.755 | 23.755 | 260.117 | 199.239 | 334.51 |
| TSH | 75 | 10.389 | 7.525 | 8.300 | 1.400 | 27.60 |
TSH and TG
Figure showing Correlation between TSH and TG
The scatter plots above show relationship between TSH on X axis and TG on Y axis. Graphically, we see that as TSH increases, TG also increases .
On a formal statistical linear regression analysis, we that line of best fit (blue line signifying line with least square difference) also has a positive slope implying a positive correlation.
The gray shaded error around blue line signifies 95% confidence interval of linear regression line of best fit.
The correlation between two variables is Significant . The Pearson's correlation between TSH and TG is 0.64 with 95% Confidence Interval of 0.48 to 0.76. the t statistic is 7.07 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 73.
In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(73)= 7.07, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.64 95% C.I. [0.48-0.76]. n= 75. The correlation is summmarised in table belowTable 28. Table Summarizing correlation between TSH and TG
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Degree of Freedom | T statistic | Correlation | 95 % C.I. | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSH | TG | 73 | 7.07 | 0.64 | 0.48-0.76 | <0.001 |
Table 29 Table with summary statistics of TSH and TG
# A tibble: 2 x 7
variable n Mean SD Median Minimum Maximum
<chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
1 TG 75 219. 18.4 216 187 269
2 TSH 75 10.4 7.52 8.3 1.4 27.6TSH and HDL
Figure showing Correlation between TSH and HDL
The scatter plots above show relationship between TSH on X axis and HDL on Y axis. Graphically, we see that as TSH increases, HDL decreases .
On a formal statistical linear regression analysis, we that line of best fit (blue line signifying line with least square difference) also has a negative slope implying a negative correlation.
The gray shaded error around blue line signifies 95% confidence interval of linear regression line of best fit.
The correlation between two variables is Significant . The Pearson's correlation between TSH and HDL is -0.7 with 95% Confidence Interval of -0.8 to -0.56. the t statistic is -8.33 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 73.
In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(73)= -8.33, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = -0.7 95% C.I. [-0.8--0.56]. n= 75. The correlation is summmarised in table belowTable 30. Table Summarizing correlation between TSH and HDL
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Degree of Freedom | T statistic | Correlation | 95 % C.I. | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSH | HDL | 73 | -8.33 | -0.7 | -0.8–0.56 | <0.001 |
Table 31 Table with summary statistics of TSH and HDL
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HDL | 75 | 32.880 | 7.485 | 34.0 | 12.0 | 47.0 |
| TSH | 75 | 10.389 | 7.525 | 8.3 | 1.4 | 27.6 |
TSH and LipoproteinA
Figure showing Correlation between TSH and LipoproteinA
The scatter plots above show relationship between TSH on X axis and LipoproteinA on Y axis. Graphically, we see that as TSH increases, LipoproteinA also increases .
On a formal statistical linear regression analysis, we that line of best fit (blue line signifying line with least square difference) also has a positive slope implying a positive correlation.
The gray shaded error around blue line signifies 95% confidence interval of linear regression line of best fit.
The correlation between two variables is Significant . The Pearson's correlation between TSH and LipoproteinA is 0.7 with 95% Confidence Interval of 0.56 to 0.8. the t statistic is 8.34 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 73.
In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(73)= 8.34, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.7 95% C.I. [0.56-0.8]. n= 75. The correlation is summmarised in table belowTable 32. Table Summarizing correlation between TSH and LipoproteinA
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Degree of Freedom | T statistic | Correlation | 95 % C.I. | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSH | LipoproteinA | 73 | 8.34 | 0.7 | 0.56-0.8 | <0.001 |
Table 33 Table with summary statistics of TSH and LipoproteinA
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LipoproteinA | 75 | 26.013 | 10.001 | 25.0 | 5.0 | 56.0 |
| TSH | 75 | 10.389 | 7.525 | 8.3 | 1.4 | 27.6 |
Correlation Matrix Of selected Variables
Table 34 Correlation table of Selected variables TSH,LDL,T3,T4,TC,HDL,LDL,TG,LipoproteinA,ASCVD,HbA1c with their confidence intervals
| Variable1 | Variable2 | Correlation | pvalue | significance | Confidence_Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSH | TC | 0.97 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.95-0.98 |
| T3 | T4 | 0.89 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.84-0.93 |
| TSH | T3 | -0.89 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.93–0.83 |
| T3 | TC | -0.87 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.92–0.81 |
| TSH | T4 | -0.87 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.92–0.8 |
| T4 | TC | -0.86 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.91–0.79 |
| TC | TG | 0.74 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.62-0.83 |
| TSH | LipoproteinA | 0.70 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.56-0.8 |
| TSH | HDL | -0.70 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.8–0.56 |
| TC | LipoproteinA | 0.68 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.54-0.79 |
| T4 | LipoproteinA | -0.65 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.76–0.49 |
| TSH | TG | 0.64 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.48-0.76 |
| T3 | HDL | 0.63 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.47-0.75 |
| LDL | TG | 0.63 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.47-0.75 |
| TC | HDL | -0.61 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.73–0.44 |
| LDL | TC | 0.61 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.44-0.73 |
| T4 | TG | -0.61 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.73–0.44 |
| T3 | LipoproteinA | -0.60 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.73–0.44 |
| T4 | HDL | 0.58 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.41-0.71 |
| T3 | TG | -0.57 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.71–0.4 |
| TSH | LDL | 0.56 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.38-0.7 |
| TG | HbA1c | 0.53 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.35-0.68 |
| LDL | HDL | -0.52 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.67–0.34 |
| HDL | TG | -0.52 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.66–0.33 |
| HDL | LipoproteinA | -0.51 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.66–0.32 |
| TSH | ASCVD | 0.50 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.31-0.66 |
| TC | ASCVD | 0.49 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.3-0.64 |
| LDL | HbA1c | 0.46 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.26-0.62 |
| LDL | T4 | -0.46 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.62–0.26 |
| TG | LipoproteinA | 0.45 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.25-0.62 |
| LDL | ASCVD | 0.45 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.25-0.61 |
| LDL | T3 | -0.44 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.61–0.24 |
| HDL | ASCVD | -0.43 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.6–0.23 |
| LDL | LipoproteinA | 0.43 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.23-0.6 |
| T3 | ASCVD | -0.38 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.56–0.17 |
| T4 | ASCVD | -0.36 | 0.00129 | Significant | -0.55–0.15 |
| LipoproteinA | ASCVD | 0.34 | 0.00284 | Significant | 0.12-0.53 |
| TG | ASCVD | 0.31 | 0.0061 | Significant | 0.09-0.5 |
| HDL | HbA1c | -0.23 | 0.0458 | Significant | -0.44-0 |
| ASCVD | HbA1c | 0.17 | 0.138 | Non-Significant | -0.06-0.38 |
| TC | HbA1c | 0.16 | 0.175 | Non-Significant | -0.07-0.37 |
| T4 | HbA1c | -0.07 | 0.574 | Non-Significant | -0.29-0.16 |
| LipoproteinA | HbA1c | 0.07 | 0.575 | Non-Significant | -0.16-0.29 |
| TSH | HbA1c | 0.02 | 0.834 | Non-Significant | -0.2-0.25 |
| T3 | HbA1c | -0.02 | 0.857 | Non-Significant | -0.25-0.21 |