Comparison of risk assessment of Metabolic Syndrome and DRS.

<p>*P for comparison with the row immediately above.</p><p>**95% C.I based on observed variance under bootstrap resampling of the differences to MetS.</p>#<p> = Positive Predictive Value.</p>∧<p> = Negative Predictive Value.</p

Reclassification of subjects with impaired fasting glucose and/or elevated HbA1c in three MetS groups by DRS.

<p>Reclassification of subjects with impaired fasting glucose and/or elevated HbA1c in three MetS groups by DRS.</p

Mean biomarker and risk factor values by DRS for subjects with 4–5 MetS factors.

<p>Mean levels of biomarker and MetS variables within each DRS group (A–C) for all subjects with 4–5 MetS risk factors (n = 470). The P-values are calculated by ANOVA.</p

Reclassification of all subjects in three MetS groups by DRS.

<p>Reclassification of all subjects in three MetS groups by DRS.</p

Baseline characteristics of subset of subjects from Inter99 cohort.

<p>Data are <i>n</i> (%) or median (interquartile range) for continuous variables. For categorical descriptors, values are counts (percentage of total for that cohort). Differences in frequency between converters and nonconverters were evaluated with a Monte Carlo estimation of the χ² statistic (2,000 replicates). Differences in medians of continuous variables were evaluated with a Wilcoxon test. NFG, normal fasting glucose; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; eHbA1c, elevated hemoglobin HbA1c.</p