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.
Variable
Area under the ROC curve (95% C.I.)
Significancea
Optimal cut-off pointb
Sensitivity
Specificity
Balanced accuracy
PPVc
PNVd
WHtR
High TG overall
0.600 (0.441–0.760)
= 0.200
0.60
62.8%
62.5%
62.7%
90.8%
22.2%
High TG female
0.581 (0.251–0.912)
= 0.555
0.58
76.7%
60.0%
68.4%
94.3%
23.1%
High TG male
0.622 (0.441–0.803)
= 0.207
0.60
66.7%
63.6%
65.2%
89.5%
29.2%
Low HDL-C overall
0.501 (0.389–0.613)
= 0.985
0.63
43.9%
63.6%
53.8%
64.4%
43.1%
Low HDL-C female
0.613 (0.451–0.774)
= 0.188
0.60
64.3%
55.0%
59.7%
66.7%
52.4%
Low HDL-C male
0.416 (0.269–0.562)
= 0.266
0.63
42.1%
54.2%
48.2%
59.3%
37.1%
Hyperglycemia overall
0.606 (0.335–0.877)
= 0.426
0.65
60.0%
69.5%
64.8%
8.6%
97.3%
Hyperglycemia female
0.689 (0.388–0.990)
= 0.277
0.65
66.7%
82.2%
74.5%
20.0%
97.4%
Hyperglycemia male
0.567 (0.009–1.000)
= 0.750
0.76
50.0%
93.3%
71.7%
20.0%
98.3%
Hypertension overall
0.601 (0.491–0.711)
= 0.081
0.63
51.3%
64.8%
58.1%
44.4%
70.8%
Hypertension female
0.737 (0.584–0.891)
= 0.006e
0.62
66.7%
73.3%
70.0%
60.0%
78.6%
Hypertension male
0.512 (0.359–0.665)
= 0.876
0.66
38.1%
68.3%
53.2%
38.1%
68.3%
Hyperinsulinism overall
0.599 (0.490–0.780)
= 0.093
0.61
69.4%
52.7%
61.1%
41.7%
78.0%
Hyperinsulinism female
0.717 (0.569–0.865)
= 0.014e
0.61
70.6%
64.5%
67.6%
52.2%
80.0%
Hyperinsulinism male
0.509 (0.358–0.660)
= 0.909
0.61
68.4%
44.2%
56.3%
35.1%
76.0%
Insulin resistance (HOMA) overall
0.566 (0.459–0.673)
= 0.245
0.61
64.3%
51.5%
57.9%
45.0%
70.0%
Insulin resistance (HOMA) female
0.713 (0.567–0.859)
= 0.013e
0.61
68.4%
65.5%
67.0%
56.5%
76.0%
Insulin resistance (HOMA) male
0.457 (0.312–0.602)
= 0.575
0.59
73.9%
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.
