3 ms·
Please note: The calculation of TyG is ln (fasting blood sugar) x triglycerides/2). Many studies make the error of calculating it as (ln (FBS x TG))/2. The on
by arkades 6y ago
Please note:
The calculation of TyG is ln (fasting blood sugar) x triglycerides/2). Many studies make the error of calculating it as (ln (FBS x TG))/2. The only online calculator I've found, I think, falls into the latter category, or has worse errors - I didn't go through it too rigorously, but I put in values beyond what human life can sustain and didn't get close to the cut-off for this paper's bottom risk tier.
If you look at studies/calculator using the latter calculation, it looks like this study looks at really, really severe diabetics.
If you compare with the appropriate calculation, though, they're looking at more run-of-the-mill "not optimally treated and obese" diabetics.
Hosseini 2017 did a paper analyzing a number of other TyG papers and calculating results under both calculation methodologies, for context.
Please also note that this paper does not state when the results were collected. Insulin resistance/hyperglycemia is a symptom of sepsis - if these labs were drawn on already-severe patients, it would be entirely unclear whether they reflect a cause or an effect (or, as is almost certainly the case, both!).
- dreamcompiler 6y ago> The calculation of TyG is ln (fasting blood sugar) x triglycerides/2). You have a extra right parenthesis, which makes it ambiguous. Do you mean ln (FBS) x triglycerides/2 Or ln (FBS x triglycerides/2) ?
- tw000001 6y agoDoesn't matter since both multiplication and division are...commutative? Don't remember the terminology but (10x2)/4 == 10x(2/4) == 5
- rat9988 6y agoIt matters here because he is using ln, and we don't know if we should stop at the first right parenthesis or the second. The word you are looking for is associative.
- CydeWeys 6y agoOoof, thanks for that. I didn't realize that was the natural log function because of the space. My brain was parsing it as the word "In" and essentially ignoring it.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoThere shouldn't be a space IMO, reading it out of context I couldn't see what the issue was either as I too was not parsing the ln as log_e. ln x or ln(x) but not ln (x)
- indiv0 6y agoln(5) * 10 / 2 ~= 8.047 ln(5 * 10 / 2) ~= 3.219 So it does matter.
- arkades 6y agoSorry, typo in my original post. It's ln(FBS x (Trig/2))
- graeme 6y agoSo would it be accurate to say we could use that calculator if we: * Cut our glucose number in two * multiple their result by 2 Assuming you’re saying they are incorrectly dividing the ln by two, when they should be dividing blood sugar by 2. So we need to manually adjust the blood sugar, and multiply their final result by two to adjust for their ln. What’s an optimal result? Using the method above I got 7.5 https://www.mdapp.co/tyg-index-calculator-359/ https://www.mdapp.co/tyg-index-calculator-359/