Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atherogenicity indices have emerged as promising markers for cardiometabolic disorders, yet their relationship with prediabetes risk remains unclear. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the associations between six atherogenicity indices and prediabetes risk in a Chinese population, and explore the predictive value of these atherosclerotic parameters for prediabetes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 97,151 participants from 32 healthcare centers across China, with a median follow-up of 2.99 (2.13, 3.95) years. Six atherogenicity indices were calculated: Castelli's Risk Index-I (CRI-I), Castelli's Risk Index-II (CRI-II), Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP), Atherogenic Index (AI), Lipoprotein Combine Index (LCI), and Cholesterol Index (CHOLINDEX). To address the natural relationships between the atherogenicity indices and risk of prediabetes, we applied Cox proportional hazards regression with cubic spline functions and smooth curve fitting, using a recursive algorithm to calculate inflection points. Machine learning approach (XGBoost and Boruta methods) to address the high collinearity among indices and assess their relative importance, combined with time-dependent ROC analysis to evaluate the predictive performance at 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: During follow-up, 11,199 participants developed prediabetes (incidence rate: 3.71 per 100 person-years). Significant nonlinear associations were observed between all atherogenicity indices and prediabetes risk. Through Z-score standardization of atherogenicity indices and comprehensive Cox proportional hazards regression and advanced machine learning techniques, we identified AIP as the most significant predictor of prediabetes [HR = 1.057 (95% CI 1.035-1.080, P < 0.0001)], with LCI emerging as a secondary important marker [HR = 1.020 (95% CI 1.002-1.038, P = 0.0267)]. Our innovative XGBoost and Boruta analysis uniquely validated these findings, providing robust evidence of AIP and LCI's critical role in prediabetes risk assessment. Time-dependent ROC analysis further validated these findings, with LCI and AIP demonstrating comparable discrimination, with overlapping AUC ranges of 0.5952-0.6082. Notably, the combined indices model achieved enhanced predictive performance (AUC: 0.6753) compared to individual indices, suggesting the potential benefit of using multiple atherogenicity indices for prediabetes risk prediction. CONCLUSION: This study identifies statistically significant associations between atherogenicity indices and prediabetes risk, highlighting their nonlinear relationships and combined effects. While the predictive performance of these indices is modest (AUC 0.55-0.68), these findings may contribute to improved risk stratification when incorporated into comprehensive assessment strategies.