International Journal of Endocrinology / 2014 / Article / Tab 5

Research Article

Waist-to-Height Ratio Is a Better Anthropometric Index than Waist Circumference and BMI in Predicting Metabolic Syndrome among Obese Mexican Adolescents

Table 5

Area under the ROC curves and 95% confidence intervals for WHtR, with cut-offs for the sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, PPV, and PNV of individual MS components, hyperinsulinism, and HOMA-IR diagnosis.

VariableArea under the ROC curve (95% C.I.)SignificanceaOptimal cut-off pointbSensitivitySpecificityBalanced accuracyPPVcPNVd

WHtR
 High TG overall0.600 (0.441–0.760) = 0.2000.6062.8%62.5%62.7%90.8%22.2%
 High TG female0.581 (0.251–0.912) = 0.5550.5876.7%60.0%68.4%94.3%23.1%
 High TG male0.622 (0.441–0.803) = 0.2070.6066.7%63.6%65.2%89.5%29.2%
 Low HDL-C overall0.501 (0.389–0.613) = 0.9850.6343.9%63.6%53.8%64.4%43.1%
 Low HDL-C female0.613 (0.451–0.774) = 0.1880.6064.3%55.0%59.7%66.7%52.4%
 Low HDL-C male0.416 (0.269–0.562) = 0.2660.6342.1%54.2%48.2%59.3%37.1%
 Hyperglycemia overall0.606 (0.335–0.877) = 0.4260.6560.0%69.5%64.8%8.6%97.3%
 Hyperglycemia female0.689 (0.388–0.990) = 0.2770.6566.7%82.2%74.5%20.0%97.4%
 Hyperglycemia male0.567 (0.009–1.000) = 0.7500.7650.0%93.3%71.7%20.0%98.3%
 Hypertension overall0.601 (0.491–0.711) = 0.0810.6351.3%64.8%58.1%44.4%70.8%
 Hypertension female0.737 (0.584–0.891) = 0.006e0.6266.7%73.3%70.0%60.0%78.6%
 Hypertension male0.512 (0.359–0.665) = 0.8760.6638.1%68.3%53.2%38.1%68.3%
 Hyperinsulinism overall0.599 (0.490–0.780) = 0.0930.6169.4%52.7%61.1%41.7%78.0%
 Hyperinsulinism female0.717 (0.569–0.865) = 0.014e0.6170.6%64.5%67.6%52.2%80.0%
 Hyperinsulinism male0.509 (0.358–0.660) = 0.9090.6168.4%44.2%56.3%35.1%76.0%
 Insulin resistance (HOMA) overall0.566 (0.459–0.673) = 0.2450.6164.3%51.5%57.9%45.0%70.0%
 Insulin resistance (HOMA) female0.713 (0.567–0.859) = 0.013e0.6168.4%65.5%67.0%56.5%76.0%
 Insulin resistance (HOMA) male0.457 (0.312–0.602) = 0.5750.5973.9%28.2%51.1%37.8%64.7%

In all cases, 110 subjects (48 females and 62 males) were considered.
aNull hypothesis: area = 0.5.
bPositive if assessment is more than or equal to the optimal cut-off point; it was calculated as the minimum value of the square root of [(1 − sensitivity)2 + (1 − specificity)2], and greater accuracy is reflected by a smaller distance to point (0, 1) in the ROC curve.
cPPV: predictive positive value.
dPNV: predictive negative value.
eSignificant values.