Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between ultra-processed food consumption pattern scores and incident type 2 diabetes

From: Ultra-processed food and incident type 2 diabetes: studying the underlying consumption patterns to unravel the health effects of this heterogeneous food category in the prospective Lifelines cohort

Consumption patterns scores

Models

Quartiles of consumption pattern scores of ultra-processed food

   

First

Second

Third

Fourth

P-trend

Continuous

P value

Warm savory snack pattern

Cases/population

291/17,561

272/17,649

273/17,605

292/17,606

   

Model 1a

1

1.15 (0.97, 1.37)

1.42 (1.19, 1.69)

1.82 (1.52, 2.18)

< 0.001

1.22 (1.16, 1.27)

< 0.001

Model 2b

1

1.13 (0.95, 1.34)

1.36 (1.14, 1.64)

1.74 (1.43, 2.12)

< 0.001

1.22 (1.16, 1.29)

< 0.001

Model 3c

1

1.07 (0.90, 1.27)

1.23 (1.02, 1.48)

1.43 (1.17, 1.75)

< 0.001

1.15 (1.08, 1.21)

< 0.001

Model 4d

1

1.02 (0.86, 1.22)

1.11 (0.92, 1.34)

1.17 (0.96, 1.44)

0.097

1.07 (1.00, 1.14)

0.057

Traditional Dutch cuisine pattern

Cases/population

276/17,605

282/17,605

301/17,605

269/17,606

   

Model 1a

1

1.01 (0.85, 1.19)

1.11 (0.94, 1.31)

1.06 (0.89, 1.26)

0.332

1.03 (0.97, 1.10)

0.330

Model 2b

1

1.06 (0.89, 1.26)

1.19 (0.99, 1.43)

1.15 (0.94, 1.42)

0.113

1.07 (0.99, 1.15)

0.101

Model 3c

1

1.05 (0.88, 1.25)

1.16 (0.96, 1.39)

1.11 (0.90, 1.37)

0.192

1.05 (0.97, 1.14)

0.207

Model 4d

1

1.03 (0.87, 1.23)

1.11 (0.92, 1.33)

1.07 (0.87, 1.31)

0.411

1.03 (0.95, 1.11)

0.476

Sweet snack pattern

Cases/population

400/17,605

273/17,605

231/17,605

224/17,606

   

Model 1a

1

0.68 (0.58, 0.79)

0.58 (0.49, 0.68)

0.60 (0.50, 0.70)

< 0.001

0.82 (0.76, 0.89)

< 0.001

Model 2b

1

0.66 (0.57, 0.78)

0.55 (0.47, 0.66)

0.53 (0.44, 0.64)

< 0.001

0.79 (0.72, 0.86)

< 0.001

Model 3c

1

0.69 (0.59, 0.81)

0.60 (0.50, 0.71)

0.59 (0.49, 0.71)

< 0.001

0.82 (0.76, 0.89)

< 0.001

Model 4d

1

0.75 (0.64, 0.88)

0.68 (0.57, 0.81)

0.69 (0.57, 0.84)

< 0.001

0.87 (0.80, 0.94)

0.001

Cold savory snack pattern

Cases/population

292/17,605

266/17,605

289/17,605

281/17,606

   

Model 1a

1

0.98 (0.83, 1.16)

1.10 (0.93, 1.30)

1.08 (0.92, 1.28)

0.188

1.09 (1.02, 1.15)

0.007

Model 2b

1

1.04 (0.88, 1.24)

1.20 (1.01, 1.43)

1.22 (1.03, 1.46)

0.010

1.13 (1.06, 1.20)

< 0.001

Model 3d

1

1.07 (0.91, 1.27)

1.27 (1.07, 1.51)

1.33 (1.12, 1.59)

< 0.001

1.16 (1.09, 1.22)

< 0.001

Model 4d

1

1.04 (0.87, 1.23)

1.20 (1.00, 1.42)

1.20 (1.00, 1.44)

0.020

1.11 (1.04, 1.18)

0.001

  1. aModel 1: OR (95% CI) derived from multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age and sex, n = 70,421
  2. bModel 2: OR (95% CI) derived from multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for Model 1 covariates plus Lifelines diet score, total energy intake, and alcohol intake, n = 70,421
  3. cModel 3: OR (95% CI) derived from multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for Model 2 covariates plus smoking status, educational level, non-occupational moderate-to-vigorous physical activity level, and TV watching time, n = 70,418
  4. dModel 4: OR (95% CI) derived from multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for Model 3 covariates plus BMI, n = 70,403
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us