Table 3. Hazard Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for the Associations of Indicators of Diet Quality with 4-Year Incid

Business, Finance, Economics, Accounting, Operations Management, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Algebra, Precalculus, Statistics and Probabilty, Advanced Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Nursing, Psychology, Certifications, Tests, Prep, and more.
Post Reply
answerhappygod
Site Admin
Posts: 899603
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:13 am

Table 3. Hazard Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for the Associations of Indicators of Diet Quality with 4-Year Incid

Post by answerhappygod »

Table 3 Hazard Ratios And 95 Confidence Intervals For The Associations Of Indicators Of Diet Quality With 4 Year Incid 1
Table 3 Hazard Ratios And 95 Confidence Intervals For The Associations Of Indicators Of Diet Quality With 4 Year Incid 1 (73.92 KiB) Viewed 11 times
Looking at table 3 where only people that had not signs of
frailty are analyzed. The crude measures of effect indicate that a
healthy eating index score that is less than GOOD increases the
risk of frailty.
true
false
Looking at table 3, the effect for a medium Healthy Eating Index
score is attenuated in model 2.
true
false
Table 3. Hazard Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for the Associations of Indicators of Diet Quality with 4-Year Incidence of Pre-frailty or Frailty in Robust (n = 1020) Community-Dwelling Older Adults of the Health ABC Study Cohort Risk of developing pre-trailty or frailty (4-y follow-upjab Variable Crude model Model 10 Model 20 Healthy Eating Index score Poor (<51) 1.44 (1.02-2.03) 1.23 (0.16-1.76) 1.31 (0.92-1.89) Medium (51-80) 1.15 (0.95-1.41) 1.10 (0.90-1.35) 1.19 (0.96-1.46) Good (>80) 1.00 (Red) 1.00 (Ret) 1.00 (Ret) P value for trend .037 .226 .076 Energy intake per 100 kcald lower intake 1.00 (0.99-1.01) 0.99 (0.98-1.01) 0.99 (0.98-1.01) Energy Intake, kcal/d Q1: $1360.6 0.99 (0.79-1.25) 0.93 (0.73-1.18) 0.92 (0.72-1.16) Q2: 1360.7-1742.4 1.09 (0.87-1.36) 1.06 (0.B4-1.33) 1.04 (0.83-1.31) Q3. 1742.5-2217.1 1.12 (0.90-1.40) 1.13 (0.90-1.41) 1.12 (0.90-1.40) 04:222172 1.00 (Ret) 1.00 (Ret) 1.00 (Ret) P value for trend .944 .602 .520 Total protein intake per 10-g/d lower intake 1.03 (0.98-1.09) 1.02 (0.96-1.08) 1.03 (0.98-1.09) Total protein intake, gd Q1: 557.16 1.14 (0.90-1.43) 1.07 (0.84-1.35) 1.12 (0.88-1.42) Q2: 57.17-64.18 1.13 (0.90-1.42) 1.13 (0.89-1.42) 1.11 (0.88-1.41) 03: 64.19-73.19 1.26 (1.01-1.58) 1.28 (1.02-1.61) 1.29 (1.02-1.62) 04: 273.20 1.00 (Ret) 1.00 (Ret) 1.00 (Ret) P value for trend .332 .665 .457 Total protein intake <0.8 g kg aBW per day 0.92 (0.79-1.10) 0.91 (0.76-1.09) 0.94 (0.78-1.14) Animal protein intake per 10-g/d lower intake 1.00 (0.95-1.05) 1.00 (0.95-1.05) 1.03 (0.97-1.09) Vegetable protein intake per 10-gd lower intake 1.19 (1.04-1.36)" 1.14 (1.00-1.31) 1.20 (1.04-1.39)* Note Data are given as hazard ratio (95% confidence interval). Abbreviations: akW, adjusted body weight; Health ABC Health, Aging, and Body Compositions Q, quartile, Ref, reference. *P<.05, *p<.01. Frailty status was categorized into robust score = 0 of 5), pre-trail score = 1-2 of 5), and frail score = 3 or greater of 5). Cases/total - 613/991 (differs from original sample size due to missing covariates Adjusted for age, sex, race, study site, education level, income, living arrangement, smoking status, alcohol consumption, fat mass index, and energy intake. By using energy intake as the independent variable, models were not additionally adjusted for energy intake. Additionally adjusted for number of chronic diseases, estimated glomerular filtration rate, depression, cognitive function, and number of medications. Ani mal and vegetable protein were mutually adjusted *The hazard ratio reflects the association for low less than 0.8 pky BW per day compared to high 10.8 or greater pkg aw per day) protein intake.
Join a community of subject matter experts. Register for FREE to view solutions, replies, and use search function. Request answer by replying!
Post Reply