Fig. 6

Relationships among host economic status, MetS prevalence and lifestyle. a MetS prevalence in individuals of differing economic status. Individuals were classified into low-spending (N = 1170), moderate-spending (N = 2394) and high-spending (N = 1099) groups, and the ratios of MetS subjects of each group were compared by a chi-square test, with adjustment by the Benjamini and Hochberg method; ***P < 0.001, *P < 0.05. b Bar plot illustrating correlation coefficient values for host spending and lifestyle. A longer bar indicates a higher coefficient, and the R values are labelled on the x-axis. Correlation coefficients were calculated by Spearman correlation, and the Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. ***P < 0.001. c Comparison of MetS prevalence between subjects with low MetS index values (N = 1719) and high MetS index values (N = 1714), with analysis performed via a chi-square test. d MetS prevalence in individuals with different MetS index values. Individuals were quarterised according to their MetS index values, and the ratio of MetS subjects in each quartile was compared by a chi-square test. The top 16-grid plot shows the MetS prevalence in different subpopulations. Individuals were divided into 16 groups according to the quarterisation of their MetS index (x-axis) and sedentary time values (y-axis). The colour gradient of the cell indicates MetS prevalence, which is also indicated in each cell. The results of the statistical tests between all pair of cells are provided in Additional file 2: Table S4. The three bottom 16-grid plots show population distributions within each spending level. Individuals were first divided into high-(the second plot), moderate-(the third plot) and low-spending (the fourth plot) groups, and the proportion of individuals in each cell at their economic level was calculated. The greyscale of the cell indicates the proportion, which is also indicated in each cell