Association between oxidative balance score and kidney function among Chinese adults: impact of gender, diabetes and hypertension


Abstract

Background. Oxidative stress, as quantified by the Oxidative Balance Score (OBS) reflecting the balance between antioxidant and pro-oxidant exposures, plays a pivotal role in kidney function. This study aims to investigate the association between OBS and kidney function, examining gender, diabetes, and hypertension as potential effect modifiers.

Methods. Cross-sectional data from 9,464 participants in Fujian Province (2020-2021) were analyzed. OBS was calculated using 10 dietary and lifestyle components. Logistic regression assessed associations between OBS and kidney function, stratified by gender, diabetes, and hypertension, with interaction terms. Mediation analysis evaluated the role of neutrophil-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio (NHR) and platelet-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio (PHR).

Results. OBS was inversely associated with low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in hypertensive women without diabetes (OR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.86). A similar protective association was observed in normotensive (OR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.23-0.82) men and prehypertensive men (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.40-0.81), independent of diabetes status. Additionally, a significant interaction between OBS and hypertension in men suggested a hypertension-dependent effect. Mediation analysis further indicated that the NHR and PHR accounted for 19.79% and 13.13% of the OBS effects on albuminuria, respectively. NHR also accounted for 9.41% of the association between OBS and low eGFR among normotensive and prehypertensive men.

Conclusions. Our findings highlight the importance of considering gender and hypertension status when evaluating the protective association between OBS and kidney function, particularly in normotensive and prehypertensive men.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].