ライフサイエンスコーパス: cohort effect

1 each successive generation born after 1951 (cohort effect).

2 enced by year of birth in the United States (cohort effect).

3 fects) or individuals in successive cohorts (cohort effect).

4 the year of birth of either partner (a birth cohort effect).

5 ar-associated differences in susceptibility (cohort effects).

6 ispersion of the residuals, ameliorating any cohort effects).

7 westernization was associated with the birth cohort effect.

8 nic interaction," given that there is no age cohort effect.

9 whether this is an aging or a year-of-birth cohort effect.

10 ore educated, this did not fully explain the cohort effect.

11 growth trajectories after accounting for the cohort effect.

12 ct of normal aging and not primarily a birth cohort effect.

13 o culling of seropositive donors and a birth cohort effect.

14 ession models were used to examine the birth cohort effect.

15 ated using linear mixed models with a random cohort effect.

16 younger participants, suggesting a possible cohort effect.

17 sk factor adjustment for analyzing the birth cohort effect.

18 itudinal changes observed, there was a birth cohort effect.

19 y during 1985 and 1994 was explained by this cohort effect.

20 and declined thereafter, suggesting a birth cohort effect.

21 carefully interpreted in light of the birth cohort effect.

22 and suicide method-specific age, period, and cohort effects.

23 se findings were not discriminable from pure cohort effects.

24 values, especially in scenarios dominated by cohort effects.

25 he cohorts, indicating possible age or birth cohort effects.

26 ous scenarios influenced by age, period, and cohort effects.

27 an age period cohort model to estimate birth cohort effects.

28 n different age groups, representing age and cohort effects.

29 idate genes of aging and longevity and their cohort effects.

30 cohort analysis was used to isolate age and cohort effects.

31 r the WHI report, adjusted for age and birth cohort effects.

32 ider the possible explanations of period and cohort effects.

33 tched and do not include cross-generation or cohort effects.

34 butable to calendar period rather than birth cohort effects.

35 Cohort effects accounted for 69% of total sample varianc

36 Health Survey results indicated a decreasing cohort effect among those born in 1922-1925 through 1935

37 ge-specific rates were consistent with birth cohort effects among both American Indians and Hispanics

38 We analyzed birth cohort effects among NASH LT registrants, with and witho

39 g multiple linear mixed models with a random cohort effect and adjusted for relevant covariates.

40 dence of testicular cancer is due to a birth-cohort effect and secondary to early exposure.

41 riable analyses incorporating random RCB and cohort effects and adjustments for age and pretreatment

42 Our empirical approach separates age from cohort effects and corrects for measurement error from r

43 We observed limited signals for cohort effects and modeled only period effects.

44 nds over time requires separation of age and cohort effects, and few prior studies have used this app

45 n, repeat vaccination, birth (immunological) cohort effects, and potential within-season waning of va

46 Sex, ethnicity, comorbidity, cohort effects, and site of ascertainment were also take

47 to pregnancy, gene-environment interactions, cohort effects, and time trends in patients with allergi

48 In addition, because age-period and cohort effects are codefined, evaluation of age trends m

49 Investigations of age, period, and cohort effects are difficult because the 3 factors are l

50 y (N = 27,572), we find strong evidence that cohort effects are driving the increase in population-le

51 he evolutionary and epidemic implications of cohort effects are not possible.

52 st on the basis of constant age, period, and cohort effects at 2012 values, as is most commonly done

53 rong independent trends across generations ("cohort effects") but only modest period changes.

54 ere was substantial heterogeneity in age and cohort effects by method, sex, and race, with a first pe

55 le, control for calendar-period and/or birth cohort effects can be achieved by stratifying the model

56 endar period of diagnosis effects, and birth cohort effects, can help guide resource allocation and d

57 Failure to differentiate between cohort effects caused by differences in the set, rather

58 No cohort effects could be discerned for caries.

59 difficult to disentangle period effects from cohort effects, demographers, epidemiologists, actuaries

60 tant signal, in sharp contrast to the fit-to-cohort effect, disappointing findings to date, and limit

61 However, it is possible that a birth cohort effect, due to different levels of exposure to ri

62 5, -0.27) and then a continuously increasing cohort effect during the remainder of the 20th century t

63 o heterogeneity was noted between individual cohort effect estimates (I(2) p value=0.95).

64 We generated updated age-period-cohort effect estimates of recent suicide mortality rate

65 Cohort effect estimates were meta-analyzed.

66 nce of germ cell cancer is linked to a birth cohort effect; evidence in support of the importance of

67 This study provides further evidence that a cohort effect exists in dementia prevalence.

68 Cohort effects explained considerable proportions of var

69 o), Kramer et al. find evidence that age and cohort effects figure more prominently than do period ef

70 strated that this rise was visible as a male cohort effect for both TTP and contraceptive failure.

71 There was a significant cohort effect for increasing myopia prevalence across mo

72 lier-born cohorts and indicated an increased cohort effect for the earliest born (for 1912-1914, beta

73 t in the general population and tested birth cohort effects for gender differences.

74 rmine and incorporate prior age, period, and cohort effects from 1979 to 2012, stratified by age, sex

75 Although the birth cohort effect has continued to increase over time, the c

76 to estimate the impact that age, period, and cohort effects have had on trends in black-white inequal

77 agnostics and clinical awareness), and birth cohort effects (ie, environmental risk factors) over tim

78 of ALS incidence is attributable to a birth cohort effect in women, with a peak in the 1930 cohort.

79 Study (n ~ 390,000), we estimated age-period-cohort effects in adolescent internalizing symptoms (e.g

80 We sought to disentangle age, period, and cohort effects in chewing ability between 2007 and 2018.

81 To describe ethnic trends and cohort effects in diabetes mortality in New Mexico, the

82 This global study identified birth cohort effects in most Asian countries/regions but virtu

83 his variation can be explained by litter and cohort effects, individual host genotype had a measurabl

84 oss-sectional studies could be misleading if cohort effects influence HPV detection.

85 Our findings demonstrate that the birth cohort effect is likely attributable to unmeasured risk

86 e distinguished a period effect from a birth cohort effect (lifelong tendency) in both sexes.

87 older female individuals, suggesting a birth cohort effect may have been associated with previously o

88 sible unmeasured risk factors that cause the cohort effect may help us understand the etiology of the

89 ive data on recent trends and how period and cohort effects may affect these trends among young women

90 ression in all contexts, which may be due to cohort effects, modes of transmission, viral clade, or o

91 Cohort effects, new sex partnerships, and human papillom

92 population ages and due to the strong birth cohort effects observed in the general population.

93 two alternatives better explains the data: a cohort effect of changing prevalence by decade or a long

94 We also estimated a cohort effect of increased risk for the minor allele of

95 individual's myopia rather than because of a cohort effect of increasing prevalence over time.

96 After adjusting for the cohort effect of the pandemic, elevated trait anxiety re

97 In this young cohort, effects of immediate ART on 10-year risk for can

98 not to differences between the individuals (cohort effect) of cohorts.

99 actors) showed an apparent independent birth cohort effect on age-related maculopathy.

100 Our estimated significant cohort effect on APOE$\varepsilon $4 is indicative of th

101 A birth cohort effect on axial length was evident as the axial l

102 inding of this study was discovering a birth cohort effect on axial length, especially in persons bor

103 survivorship, period, and year-of-diagnosis cohort effects on cancer prognosis.

104 used propensity scores to control for birth cohort effects on HT use.

105 retations of the impacts of age, period, and cohort effects on racial inequalities in heart disease m

106 s assessed the influence of age, period, and cohort effects on rates of preterm delivery in the Unite

107 ck girls and women, by estimating age-period-cohort effects on suicide rates among decedents coded as

108 ight gain, and other covariates mediated the cohort effects on these traits.

109 he relative contribution of age, period, and cohort effects on violence trends.

110 nor the direction of a linear trend in birth cohort effects or calendar period effects can be determi

111 ly attrition from care was due to a "healthy cohort" effect or to overcrowding as programs expanded t

112 c measurement and methodological approaches, cohort effects, or cultural specificities.

113 ge-period model, with borderline significant cohort effects (P = 0.08).

114 omparisons have been complicated by regional cohort effects, phenotypic differences in sex ratio and

115 carcinoma in recent years is largely a birth-cohort effect presumably associated with greater exposur

116 ed, including viral genomic variation, birth cohort effects, prior vaccination, and epidemic period.

117 toward younger ages that is associated with cohort effects rather than period effects.

118 ation to infection ratios and explored birth cohort effects referencing the pandemic years (1957; 196

119 r population scientists often disagree about cohort effects' relative importance.

120 owed a substantial increase over time, while cohort effects remained stable throughout the study peri

121 On the other hand, the female birth cohort effect showed a slight fall in the first half of

122 When adjusting for birth weight and cohort effect, significant negative associations between

123 om age-period-cohort models indicate a birth cohort effect starting with the 1912 cohort in American

124 ntribution of sociodemographic status to the cohort effect that may be the antecedent of the current

125 There was a very clear birth-cohort effect: the highest likelihood of seropositivity

126 els with the incorporation of random RCB and cohort effects to account for between-study heterogeneit

127 he contribution of calendar period and birth cohort effects to changes in the rates.

128 We multiplied the absolute risks by the age cohort effects to provide absolute risks of cervical can

129 porating expected trends in age, period, and cohort effects (trend based).

130 Estimating the age, period, and cohort effects underlying suicide mortality trends can p

131 ive binomial regression models and for birth cohort effects using age-period-cohort models.

132 We estimated age, period, and cohort effects using data from 2 countries over more tha

133 This cohort effect was due to a greater increase in fat mass

134 Moreover, an at-most negligible birth cohort effect was identified for all ethnic groups (incl

135 Asian countries/regions, virtually no birth cohort effect was identified in the Philippines (a Spani

136 No birth cohort effect was present for either dementia or AD.

137 A temporal cohort effect was present.

138 The cohort effect was prominent in South Korea, Taiwan, Japa

139 However, this birth cohort effect was significant only for PD and only in me

140 The birth cohort effect was the same across different age groups,

141 Cohort effects were identified for male and female morta

142 ding recent improvements in chewing ability, cohort effects were somewhat more important than period

143 iew and refine hypotheses for path-dependent cohort effects, which include imprinting.

144 as suppressing the SES-telomere association; cohort effects with regard different experiences of SES;

145 asing across time for most ages, and (iii) a cohort effect, with a clustering of increased suicide ra

146 There was a striking cohort effect, with those aged less than 16 years at bas