There isn't a direct correlation between Noack and oil loss and neither would I expect there ever to be one. How can blowing cold air over a cup of oil at 250°C for one hour be a fair representation of blowing moderately hot blow-by gas over/through a sump's worth of engine oil at roughly 100°C for say 300 hours of engine on time? And that's before you factor in the variation in engine types (big sump vs small sump), engine age (old engines give higher blowby than new ones) and turbos (higher compression boosted engines give more blow-by than n/a engines).
Having said all that, I can put hand on heart and say that in crude terms, oil loss DOES correlate with Noack. You see precisely this on industry standard engine tests like the Peugeot TU5 and the Sequence IIIG (although keep in mind that both tests run the oil at the unrepresentatively high temperature of 150°C). Also whilst for any given fixed set of viscometrics, a synthetic oil will give you a lower Noack than a mineral oil (and as a result, less oil loss), a mineral oil and synthetic of equal Noack will roughly give the same level of oil loss.
Noack is a very imperfect test (dating from before WWII!), but it's all we've got and I see no signs of an improved, more predictive test on the horizon. The bottom line is still, if you're genuinely concerned about your engine consuming oil, go with the lowest Noack oil you can get your hands on. Usually this translates to being a heavy, synthetic (preferably PAO), narrow cross-grade with a low level of approval (less DI is good).