RESULTS
Summary Demographic Table
Table 1 . summary Distribution of all variables ,Groupwise
| Dependent: Group | Control | DM | DM+HYPOTHYROID | DM+SCH | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Mean (SD) | 36.2 (8.1) | 34.8 (8.7) | 38.6 (7.2) | 38.9 (6.6) | 0.152 |
| Sex | Female | 15 (60.0) | 15 (60.0) | 15 (60.0) | 15 (60.0) | 1.000 |
| Male | 10 (40.0) | 10 (40.0) | 10 (40.0) | 10 (40.0) | ||
| ALT | Mean (SD) | 24.4 (5.7) | 38.3 (4.0) | 73.8 (10.7) | 49.0 (3.9) | <0.001 |
| AST | Mean (SD) | 17.2 (4.3) | 18.3 (3.2) | 22.0 (3.4) | 20.6 (2.9) | <0.001 |
| Urea | Mean (SD) | 29.2 (5.6) | 30.3 (4.7) | 29.9 (5.1) | 28.0 (4.6) | 0.439 |
| Creatinine | Mean (SD) | 1.1 (0.3) | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.2) | 0.011 |
| Weight | Mean (SD) | 57.8 (5.7) | 60.0 (2.1) | 69.8 (3.4) | 62.2 (2.5) | <0.001 |
| BMI | Mean (SD) | 22.5 (2.1) | 25.7 (1.7) | 26.9 (2.1) | 26.7 (2.2) | <0.001 |
| FBS | Mean (SD) | 99.8 (4.9) | 175.5 (15.7) | 171.3 (24.1) | 166.5 (16.4) | <0.001 |
| PPBS | Mean (SD) | 121.4 (9.5) | 223.3 (30.2) | 219.6 (26.3) | 222.7 (30.5) | <0.001 |
| HbA1c | Mean (SD) | 6.0 (0.1) | 8.1 (0.6) | 8.0 (0.9) | 7.9 (0.6) | <0.001 |
| TSH | Mean (SD) | 3.2 (0.3) | 2.8 (0.6) | 19.9 (3.8) | 8.4 (0.7) | <0.001 |
| T3 | Mean (SD) | 97.9 (11.3) | 121.9 (11.8) | 37.0 (8.9) | 111.0 (11.1) | <0.001 |
| T4 | Mean (SD) | 7.9 (1.1) | 8.1 (1.0) | 2.5 (0.8) | 7.7 (1.2) | <0.001 |
| TC | Mean (SD) | 183.5 (10.4) | 240.5 (9.1) | 314.7 (17.0) | 264.5 (6.5) | <0.001 |
| LDL | Mean (SD) | 98.1 (9.7) | 250.1 (18.4) | 278.1 (26.6) | 257.1 (15.8) | <0.001 |
| HDL | Mean (SD) | 45.0 (3.1) | 37.4 (5.4) | 26.2 (7.0) | 35.1 (4.6) | <0.001 |
| TG | Mean (SD) | 142.1 (11.1) | 209.0 (11.1) | 234.5 (19.4) | 213.2 (12.3) | <0.001 |
| VLDL | Mean (SD) | 26.4 (5.6) | 35.6 (6.6) | 50.8 (5.7) | 40.4 (5.3) | <0.001 |
| LipoproteinA | Mean (SD) | 19.1 (8.2) | 18.8 (5.8) | 34.6 (8.6) | 24.6 (8.2) | <0.001 |
| Smoker | Non-smoker | 25 (100.0) | 17 (68.0) | 18 (72.0) | 19 (76.0) | 0.025 |
| Smoker | 0 (0.0) | 8 (32.0) | 7 (28.0) | 6 (24.0) | ||
| SBP | Mean (SD) | 111.7 (7.9) | 139.2 (9.5) | 144.2 (12.7) | 144.1 (9.5) | <0.001 |
| DBP | Mean (SD) | 74.0 (4.4) | 88.6 (8.4) | 91.4 (9.9) | 89.8 (11.6) | <0.001 |
| ASCVD | Mean (SD) | 1.1 (0.9) | 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 and 20-30 in categories DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Controls . Subgroup 40-50 has highest percentage 9/25 ( 36 % ) in group Control . Subgroup 20-30 has highest percentage 10/25 ( 40 % ) in group DM . Subgroup 30-40 has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . Subgroup 30-40 has highest percentage 12/25 ( 48 % ) in group DM+SCH . To formally check for association between groups we performed pearson chi-square test .
we found a non-Significant association between age_grp and Group. The chi-square statistic was 3.42 . The degree of freedom was 9 and P value was 0.08 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown below
Table 2
| Group | age_grp | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| Control | 30-40 | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| Control | 40-50 | 9 | 9/25 ( 36 %) | 19.53% - 55.51% |
| DM | 20-30 | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
| 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+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% |
| 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% |
Table 3
| Control | DM | DM+HYPOTHYROID | DM+SCH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20-30 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
| 30-40 | 8 | 8 | 15 | 12 |
| 40-50 | 9 | 6 | 6 | 11 |
| 50-60 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
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,DM and Controls . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group Control . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . Subgroup Female has highest percentage 15/25 ( 60 % ) in group DM+SCH . 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 3 and P value was 1 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown below
Table 5
| Group | Sex | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| Control | Male | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
| DM | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM | 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% |
| DM+SCH | Female | 15 | 15/25 ( 60 %) | 40.58% - 77.25% |
| DM+SCH | Male | 10 | 10/25 ( 40 %) | 22.75% - 59.42% |
Table 6
| Control | DM | DM+HYPOTHYROID | DM+SCH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Male | 10 | 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,DM and Controls. Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 25/25 ( 100 % ) in group Control . Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 17/25 ( 68 % ) in group DM . Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 18/25 ( 72 % ) in group DM+HYPOTHYROID . Subgroup Non-smoker has highest percentage 19/25 ( 76 % ) in group DM+SCH . To formally check for association between groups we performed pearson chi-square test .
we found a Significant association between Smoker and Group. The chi-square statistic was 9.34 . The degree of freedom was 3 and P value was 0.03 .Contingency and Proportion table are shown below
Table 6
| Group | Smoker | n | value | 95 % Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Non-smoker | 25 | 25/25 ( 100 %) | 90.53% - 100% |
| DM | Non-smoker | 17 | 17/25 ( 68 %) | 48.54% - 83.56% |
| DM | Smoker | 8 | 8/25 ( 32 %) | 16.44% - 51.46% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Non-smoker | 18 | 18/25 ( 72 %) | 52.72% - 86.51% |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | Smoker | 7 | 7/25 ( 28 %) | 13.49% - 47.28% |
| DM+SCH | Non-smoker | 19 | 19/25 ( 76 %) | 57.06% - 89.31% |
| DM+SCH | Smoker | 6 | 6/25 ( 24 %) | 10.69% - 42.94% |
Table 7
| Control | DM | DM+HYPOTHYROID | DM+SCH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-smoker | 25 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| Smoker | 0 | 8 | 7 | 6 |
Outcomes Of Interest
LDL
Figure 4 Boxplot Of Distribution Of LDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of LDL in 4 sub-groups of Group : DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 8 Summary Table Of LDL within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 98.120 | 9.692 | 99.000 | 80.000 | 114.000 |
| DM | 25 | 250.084 | 18.398 | 252.609 | 199.239 | 280.388 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 278.111 | 26.600 | 272.752 | 229.961 | 334.510 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 257.069 | 15.822 | 256.834 | 229.118 | 287.506 |
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(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.939 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean LDL in Group DM was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 151.96 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 138.18 - 165.75 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 179.99 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 166.2 - 193.78 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LDL in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 158.95 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 145.16 - 172.74 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 28.03 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 14.24 - 41.82 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LDL in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 6.98 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -6.8 - 20.77 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.55 . The mean LDL in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was -21.04 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -34.83 - -7.26 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 9 Post Hoc test of LDL difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | 151.96 | 138.18 - 165.75 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | 179.99 | 166.2 - 193.78 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | 158.95 | 145.16 - 172.74 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | 28.03 | 14.24 - 41.82 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | 6.98 | -6.8 - 20.77 | 0.55 | Non-significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | -21.04 | -34.83 - -7.26 | <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 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 100.83 | 9.81 | 101.00 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 105.00 | 2.83 | 105.00 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 95.50 | 11.82 | 92.00 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 93.50 | 9.47 | 96.00 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 100.20 | 6.06 | 100.00 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 95.25 | 14.43 | 92.50 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 259.81 | 11.77 | 261.23 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 251.79 | 16.24 | 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+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 |
| 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 |
TRIGLYCERIDES
Figure 6 Boxplot Of Distribution Of LDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of TG in DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control respectively .The individual jittered data points of Triglyceride levels 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 11 Summary Table Of Triglyceride within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 142.08 | 11.068 | 143 | 118 | 166 |
| DM | 25 | 208.96 | 11.145 | 208 | 187 | 239 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 234.48 | 19.380 | 232 | 204 | 269 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 213.24 | 12.296 | 216 | 194 | 235 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Disease Categories on Triglycerides. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.866 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean TG in Group DM was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 66.88 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 56.6 - 77.16 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TG in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 92.4 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 82.12 - 102.68 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TG in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 71.16 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 60.88 - 81.44 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TG in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 25.52 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 15.24 - 35.8 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TG in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 4.28 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -6 - 14.56 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.7 . The mean TG in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was -21.24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -31.52 - -10.96 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 12 Post Hoc test of Triglyceride difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | 66.88 | 56.6 - 77.16 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | 92.40 | 82.12 - 102.68 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | 71.16 | 60.88 - 81.44 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | 25.52 | 15.24 - 35.8 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | 4.28 | -6 - 14.56 | 0.7 | Non-significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | -21.24 | -31.52 - -10.96 | <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 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 100.83 | 9.81 | 101.00 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 105.00 | 2.83 | 105.00 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 95.50 | 11.82 | 92.00 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 93.50 | 9.47 | 96.00 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 100.20 | 6.06 | 100.00 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 95.25 | 14.43 | 92.50 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 259.81 | 11.77 | 261.23 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 251.79 | 16.24 | 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+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 |
| 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 |
HDL
Figure 8 Boxplot Of Distribution Of HDL in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of HDL in DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 14 Summary Table Of HDL within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 98.120 | 9.692 | 99.000 | 80.000 | 114.000 |
| DM | 25 | 250.084 | 18.398 | 252.609 | 199.239 | 280.388 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 278.111 | 26.600 | 272.752 | 229.961 | 334.510 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 257.069 | 15.822 | 256.834 | 229.118 | 287.506 |
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(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.632 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean HDL in Group DM was significantly lower than Group Control . The difference was -7.6 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -11.46 - -3.74 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean HDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly lower than Group Control . The difference was -18.8 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -22.66 - -14.94 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean HDL in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group Control . The difference was -9.84 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -13.7 - -5.98 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean HDL in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly lower than Group DM . The difference was -11.2 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -15.06 - -7.34 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean HDL in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly lower than Group DM . The difference was -2.24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -6.1 - 1.62 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.43 . The mean HDL in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was 8.96 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 5.1 - 12.82 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 15 Post Hoc test of HDL difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | -7.60 | -11.46 - -3.74 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | -18.80 | -22.66 - -14.94 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | -9.84 | -13.7 - -5.98 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | -11.20 | -15.06 - -7.34 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | -2.24 | -6.1 - 1.62 | 0.43 | Non-significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | 8.96 | 5.1 - 12.82 | <0.001 | Significant |
Figure 9 Barplot Of Age-Sex Distribution Of HDL in our Population
Table 16 Age-Sex Distribution Of LDL in our Population
| Group | age_grp | Sex | n | Mean ( HDL ) | SD ( HDL ) | Median ( HDL ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 45.00 | 0.89 | 45.0 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 47.00 | 2.83 | 47.0 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 46.00 | 3.56 | 47.0 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 44.75 | 2.99 | 45.0 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 45.00 | 5.43 | 45.0 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 43.00 | 0.82 | 43.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 37.25 | 9.07 | 38.5 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 38.00 | 5.1 | 37.0 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 37.17 | 4.54 | 38.0 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 37.50 | 3.54 | 37.5 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 33.00 | 2.94 | 32.5 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 40.00 | 0 | 40.0 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 47.00 | 47.0 | |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 22.50 | 7.78 | 22.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 25.78 | 4.87 | 26.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 29.00 | 8.79 | 27.0 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 28.50 | 0.71 | 28.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 22.50 | 9.47 | 21.5 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 28.00 | 11.31 | 28.0 |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 28.50 | 2.12 | 28.5 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 34.00 | 4.12 | 33.0 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 35.60 | 3.44 | 37.0 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 36.00 | 6.42 | 34.5 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 37.80 | 1.3 | 38.0 |
Lipoprotein A
Figure 10 Boxplot Of Distribution Of Lipoprotein A in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of LipoproteinA in DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 17 Summary Table Of Lipoprotein A within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 15.299 | 4.907 | 14.91 | 6.167 | 24.935 |
| DM | 25 | 18.800 | 5.781 | 20.00 | 5.000 | 31.000 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 34.640 | 8.597 | 35.00 | 14.000 | 56.000 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 24.600 | 8.201 | 24.00 | 8.000 | 41.000 |
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(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.415 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM was non-significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 3.5 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -1.71 - 8.71 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.3 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 19.34 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 14.13 - 24.55 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 9.3 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 4.09 - 14.51 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 15.84 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 10.63 - 21.05 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 5.8 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 0.59 - 11.01 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.02 . The mean LipoproteinA in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was -10.04 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -15.25 - -4.83 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 18 Post Hoc test of Lipoprotein A difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | 3.50 | -1.71 - 8.71 | 0.3 | Non-significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | 19.34 | 14.13 - 24.55 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | 9.30 | 4.09 - 14.51 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | 15.84 | 10.63 - 21.05 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | 5.80 | 0.59 - 11.01 | 0.02 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | -10.04 | -15.25 - -4.83 | <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 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 15.06 | 5.67 | 13.00 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 13.11 | 4.86 | 13.11 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 12.26 | 4.42 | 13.05 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 19.57 | 4.77 | 19.96 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 14.61 | 5.45 | 14.91 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 16.38 | 2.64 | 17.32 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 19.50 | 10.88 | 21.00 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 20.83 | 4.49 | 20.50 |
| DM | 30-40 | Female | 6 | 18.00 | 5.93 | 18.50 |
| DM | 30-40 | Male | 2 | 14.50 | 0.71 | 14.50 |
| DM | 40-50 | Female | 4 | 18.50 | 4.2 | 18.00 |
| DM | 40-50 | Male | 2 | 17.50 | 6.36 | 17.50 |
| DM | 50-60 | Female | 1 | 21.00 | 21.00 | |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 40.50 | 4.95 | 40.50 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Female | 9 | 35.78 | 6.55 | 37.00 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 30-40 | Male | 6 | 33.67 | 7.09 | 31.00 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Female | 2 | 21.50 | 10.61 | 21.50 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 40.25 | 10.78 | 36.50 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 50-60 | Female | 2 | 28.50 | 7.78 | 28.50 |
| DM+SCH | 20-30 | Female | 2 | 17.00 | 9.9 | 17.00 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Female | 7 | 25.71 | 7.04 | 25.00 |
| DM+SCH | 30-40 | Male | 5 | 28.40 | 8.96 | 31.00 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Female | 6 | 23.00 | 10.81 | 22.50 |
| DM+SCH | 40-50 | Male | 5 | 24.20 | 5.02 | 26.00 |
TOTAL CHOLESTEROL
Figure 10 Boxplot Of Distribution Of Total Cholesterol in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of Total Cholesterol in DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control respectively .The individual jittered data points of Total Cholesterol 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 20 Summary Table Of Total Cholesterol within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 183.52 | 10.365 | 182 | 156 | 208 |
| DM | 25 | 240.52 | 9.111 | 241 | 222 | 263 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 314.68 | 17.012 | 318 | 273 | 344 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 264.52 | 6.475 | 264 | 249 | 279 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Disease Categories on Total Cholesterol. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.947 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean TC in Group DM was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 57 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 48.55 - 65.45 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 131.16 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 122.71 - 139.61 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 81 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 72.55 - 89.45 ) . 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 ( 65.71 - 82.61 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+SCH was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 24 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 15.55 - 32.45 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean TC in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was -50.16 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -58.61 - -41.71 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 21 Post Hoc test of Total Cholesterol difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | 57.00 | 48.55 - 65.45 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | 131.16 | 122.71 - 139.61 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | 81.00 | 72.55 - 89.45 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | 74.16 | 65.71 - 82.61 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | 24.00 | 15.55 - 32.45 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | -50.16 | -58.61 - -41.71 | <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 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 182.50 | 9.97 | 181.0 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 179.00 | 2.83 | 179.0 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 186.00 | 3.37 | 186.0 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 187.00 | 6.05 | 187.5 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 188.20 | 12.58 | 188.0 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 175.50 | 16.42 | 175.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 241.75 | 17.25 | 241.0 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 242.17 | 8.3 | 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+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 |
| 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 |
ASCVD
Figure 14 Boxplot Of Distribution Of ASCVD Risk Score in our Population
In this Figure we see Box plot of 10 yr ASCVD Risk Score DM+HYPOTHYROID,DM+SCH,DM and Control 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+1.5interquartile 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 4 groups and it has been annotated in the figure itself Summary Statistics of the groups is presented in table below
Table 23 Summary Table Of ASCVD Risk Score within Groups
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 25 | 1.140 | 0.904 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 3.5 |
| DM | 25 | 4.732 | 5.173 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 22.7 |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID | 25 | 19.560 | 24.069 | 7.4 | 2.3 | 93.7 |
| DM+SCH | 25 | 7.428 | 6.854 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 27.7 |
One-Way ANOVA results
We find that One-way ANOVA was significant for Group effect of Disease categories on ASCVD. In statistical notation it is expressed as F(3,96)=<0.01. The Effect size(Omega -Squared) of this One-way ANOVA test was 0.234 .
Post-hoc-test
Since Overall One-Way ANOVA was signifcant indicating an overall difference in groups, we undertook 6 unpaired t-test to look for inter-group differences The mean ASCVD in Group DM was non-significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 3.59 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -5.86 - 13.05 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.75 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 18.42 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 8.96 - 27.88 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group Control . The difference was 6.29 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -3.17 - 15.74 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.31 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+HYPOTHYROID was significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 14.83 and 95 % confidence interval was ( 5.37 - 24.28 ) . The adjusted p value was <0.001 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+SCH was non-significantly higher than Group DM . The difference was 2.7 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -6.76 - 12.15 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.88 . The mean ASCVD in Group DM+SCH was significantly lower than Group DM+HYPOTHYROID . The difference was -12.13 and 95 % confidence interval was ( -21.59 - -2.68 ) . The adjusted p value was 0.01 . Table describing these tests with Tukey’s Post-Hoc correction is described below
Table 24 Post Hoc test of ASCVD difference
| Comparison | Difference | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM - Control | 3.59 | -5.86 - 13.05 | 0.75 | Non-significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - Control | 18.42 | 8.96 - 27.88 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - Control | 6.29 | -3.17 - 15.74 | 0.31 | Non-significant |
| DM+HYPOTHYROID - DM | 14.83 | 5.37 - 24.28 | <0.001 | Significant |
| DM+SCH - DM | 2.70 | -6.76 - 12.15 | 0.88 | Non-significant |
| DM+SCH - DM+HYPOTHYROID | -12.13 | -21.59 - -2.68 | 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 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 20-30 | Female | 6 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.20 |
| Control | 20-30 | Male | 2 | 0.95 | 0.35 | 0.95 |
| Control | 30-40 | Female | 4 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 0.45 |
| Control | 30-40 | Male | 4 | 1.65 | 0.3 | 1.60 |
| Control | 40-50 | Female | 5 | 1.28 | 0.38 | 1.10 |
| Control | 40-50 | Male | 4 | 2.60 | 0.79 | 2.55 |
| DM | 20-30 | Female | 4 | 1.23 | 0.79 | 1.05 |
| DM | 20-30 | Male | 6 | 3.30 | 1.46 | 3.45 |
| 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+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 |
| 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 |
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 0.4 to 0.68. the t statistic is 6.64 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 98. In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(98)= 6.64, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.56 95% C.I. [0.4-0.68]. n= 100. The correlation is summmarised in table below
Table 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 | 98 | 6.64 | 0.56 | 0.4-0.68 | <0.001 |
Table 27 Table with summary statistics of TSH and LDL
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDL | 100 | 220.846 | 74.269 | 252.273 | 80.0 | 334.51 |
| TSH | 100 | 8.583 | 7.227 | 5.610 | 1.4 | 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 0.63 with 95% Confidence Interval of 0.5 to 0.74. the t statistic is 8.12 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 98. In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(98)= 8.12, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.63 95% C.I. [0.5-0.74]. n= 100. The correlation is summmarised in table below
Table 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 | 98 | 8.12 | 0.63 | 0.5-0.74 | <0.001 |
Table 29 Table with summary statistics of TSH and TG
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG | 100 | 199.690 | 37.408 | 210.50 | 118.0 | 269.0 |
| TSH | 100 | 8.583 | 7.227 | 5.61 | 1.4 | 27.6 |
TSH 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 -0.75 with 95% Confidence Interval of -0.82 to -0.65. the t statistic is -11.21 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 98. In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(98)= -11.21, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = -0.75 95% C.I. [-0.82–0.65]. n= 100. The correlation is summmarised in table below
Table 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 | 98 | -11.21 | -0.75 | -0.82–0.65 | <0.001 |
Table 31 Table with summary statistics of TSH and HDL
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HDL | 100 | 35.900 | 8.473 | 37.00 | 12.0 | 53.0 |
| TSH | 100 | 8.583 | 7.227 | 5.61 | 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 0.74 with 95% Confidence Interval of 0.63 to 0.82. the t statistic is 10.8 The p value is <0.001 .The degree of freedom is 98. In formal statistical notation this expressed as t(98)= 10.8, P= <0.001. r(Pearson) = 0.74 95% C.I. [0.63-0.82]. n= 100. The correlation is summmarised in table below
Table 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 | 98 | 10.8 | 0.74 | 0.63-0.82 | <0.001 |
Table 33 Table with summary statistics of TSH and LipoproteinA
| variable | n | Mean | SD | Median | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LipoproteinA | 100 | 23.335 | 10.116 | 22.00 | 5.0 | 56.0 |
| TSH | 100 | 8.583 | 7.227 | 5.61 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LDL | TG | 0.94 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.91-0.96 |
| TC | TG | 0.89 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.84-0.93 |
| T3 | T4 | 0.87 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.81-0.91 |
| TG | HbA1c | 0.87 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.81-0.91 |
| LDL | TC | 0.86 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.81-0.91 |
| LDL | HbA1c | 0.86 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.8-0.91 |
| TSH | TC | 0.86 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.8-0.9 |
| TSH | T4 | -0.86 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.9–0.8 |
| TSH | T3 | -0.83 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.88–0.75 |
| TC | HDL | -0.77 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.84–0.68 |
| TSH | HDL | -0.75 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.82–0.65 |
| TSH | LipoproteinA | 0.74 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.63-0.82 |
| T4 | TC | -0.74 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.82–0.63 |
| TC | LipoproteinA | 0.72 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.61-0.8 |
| HDL | TG | -0.71 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.8–0.6 |
| TC | HbA1c | 0.71 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.6-0.8 |
| LDL | HDL | -0.70 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.79–0.59 |
| T4 | LipoproteinA | -0.68 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.77–0.56 |
| HDL | LipoproteinA | -0.63 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.74–0.5 |
| TSH | TG | 0.63 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.5-0.74 |
| T4 | HDL | 0.61 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.48-0.72 |
| HDL | HbA1c | -0.61 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.72–0.47 |
| T3 | TC | -0.60 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.71–0.46 |
| TG | LipoproteinA | 0.57 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.42-0.69 |
| T3 | LipoproteinA | -0.56 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.68–0.41 |
| TSH | ASCVD | 0.56 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.41-0.68 |
| TSH | LDL | 0.56 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.4-0.68 |
| LDL | LipoproteinA | 0.54 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.38-0.67 |
| T3 | HDL | 0.54 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.38-0.66 |
| TC | ASCVD | 0.51 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.34-0.64 |
| T4 | TG | -0.50 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.63–0.33 |
| HDL | ASCVD | -0.50 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.63–0.33 |
| T4 | ASCVD | -0.41 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.56–0.24 |
| LipoproteinA | ASCVD | 0.41 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.24-0.56 |
| LipoproteinA | HbA1c | 0.41 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.23-0.56 |
| LDL | T4 | -0.41 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.56–0.23 |
| LDL | ASCVD | 0.39 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.21-0.55 |
| T3 | ASCVD | -0.39 | <0.001 | Significant | -0.54–0.21 |
| TG | ASCVD | 0.38 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.2-0.54 |
| TSH | HbA1c | 0.37 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.19-0.53 |
| ASCVD | HbA1c | 0.33 | <0.001 | Significant | 0.14-0.49 |
| T3 | TG | -0.31 | 0.00166 | Significant | -0.48–0.12 |
| T4 | HbA1c | -0.28 | 0.00419 | Significant | -0.46–0.09 |
| LDL | T3 | -0.21 | 0.0337 | Significant | -0.39–0.02 |
| T3 | HbA1c | -0.09 | 0.366 | Non-Significant | -0.28-0.11 |