ライフサイエンスコーパス: socioeconomic

1 hat the mesoscopic infrastructure volume and socioeconomic activity scale sub- and super-linearly wit

2 ve of family-related risks, partially due to socioeconomic adversity later in life.

3 Accounting for evolution in socioeconomic and climatic conditions, we estimate futur

4 Socioeconomic and clinical risk factors, such as race, e

5 be attenuated in some countries with similar socioeconomic and cultural structures.

6 d sarcoidosis outcomes after controlling for socioeconomic and disease-related factors.Methods: Using

7 n-American populations that widely differ in socioeconomic and ecological conditions: two urbanised p

8 al attention in spite of potentially adverse socioeconomic and ecological consequences.

9 ffset insufficient food production driven by socioeconomic and environmental factors.

10 places of production and consumption and the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of this trade.

11 Chronic socioeconomic and environmental stressors known to assoc

12 Understanding the possible socioeconomic and ethnic health inequities is particular

13 , we use beta regression models to study the socioeconomic and geographic drivers of CVE trends in Te

14 show that the findings generalized to county socioeconomic and health outcomes and were robust when p

15 e performed linear regressions adjusting for socioeconomic and lifestyle characteristics.

16 After adjustment for socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, a ceramide score (R

17 2 y, and to examine their associations with socioeconomic and lifestyle factors.

18 These include (i) adverse socioeconomic and psychosocial experiences during childh

19 lipids, blood pressure, diabetes, obesity), socioeconomic and psychosocial factors (ie, education, s

20 pite both outcomes sharing common individual socioeconomic and risk behaviour correlates.

21 Adjusted for individual socioeconomic and risk behaviours, and relative to the h

22 ond, we explored to what extent behavioural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors explain HIV pre

23 lained by an interplay of known behavioural, socioeconomic, and environmental factors.

24 seline differences in demographic, clinical, socioeconomic, and hospital-related characteristics betw

25 ted approach to address genetic, biological, socioeconomic, and lifestyle contributors to disease.

26 ere slightly worse off on almost all mental, socioeconomic, and psychosocial measures.

27 ice any bleeding in your gums?" Demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial variables were also eval

28 S guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking beha

29 nity (i.e., those of gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, etc.).

30 nal characteristics, including race, gender, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, religion,

31 The students' socioeconomic background, usage of eyeglasses and parent

32 s and is more common in individuals of lower socioeconomic background.

33 ure inequalities among students of different socioeconomic backgrounds at school, at home, and during

34 red to 66 young Latvian women from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and blood samples were then c

35 ying a sample of urban children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

36 At the crossroads of interacting biological, socioeconomic, behavioral, and institutional factors, ve

37 Individuals in low socioeconomic brackets are considered at-risk for develo

38 Cardiovascular disease is an enormous socioeconomic burden worldwide and remains a leading cau

39 e associated with a substantial personal and socioeconomic burden.

40 Moreover, it has a considerable socioeconomic burden.

41 e services and contributing to a rise in the socioeconomic burden.

42 ch priorities for tackling environmental and socioeconomic challenges in the face of a rapidly changi

43 phics, tumor characteristics, treatment, and socioeconomic characteristics as covariates in the analy

44 ents receiving dialysis in the USA share the socioeconomic characteristics of underserved communities

45 estimated, adjusted for demographic factors, socioeconomic characteristics, alcohol, smoking, physica

46 on, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics.

47 mologic utilization based on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

48 ata from parents' socioeconomic position and socioeconomic circumstances in participants' residential

49 lf-declaration of race as brown/pardo, lower socioeconomic class, single or dating, current smoking a

50 y available composite score constructed from socioeconomic components (e.g., income, poverty, educati

51 ses of COVID-19, public health risk factors, socioeconomic condition of the region, and immigration s

52 s endemic throughout the world regardless of socioeconomic conditions and geographic locations with a

53 Adjusting for preexisting health and socioeconomic conditions attenuates, but does not elimin

54 As children's socioeconomic conditions improved, these brain-immune as

55 rising from life history theory suggest that socioeconomic conditions influence immune function, grow

56 social experiences during childhood and (ii) socioeconomic conditions, (iii) health behaviors, (iv) s

57 OVID-19) pandemic, which has also had severe socioeconomic consequences, it is imperative to explore

58 all, research has highlighted how a couple's socioeconomic context facilitates some choices and const

59 ntries, suggesting the importance of broader socioeconomic context in determining individual's activi

60 or understanding the biological etiology and socioeconomic context of physical activity and sedentary

61 These measures carry a significant socioeconomic cost.

62 oothed incidence surfaces, environmental and socioeconomic covariates, and survey data informed a Bay

63 and intervals in a 5-year period, and other socioeconomic covariates.

64 adjusting for age, stage, comorbidities, and socioeconomic covariates.

65 ble decreases of the tracers track the major socioeconomic crises that occurred in Eastern Europe dur

66 he study period and a lack of geographic and socioeconomic data for individual private schools.

67 by spatially interacting meteorological and socioeconomic data for over 1,000 tropical cyclone disas

68 matory VAO was independently associated with socioeconomic deprivation (OR, 5.39; 95% CI, 1.46-19.89;

69 Areas with less socioeconomic deprivation and a higher concentration of

70 o evaluate associations between neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and an objective surrogate mea

71 opulation-level associations of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and racial segregation on orga

72 rticipant home addresses, was a neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation index (range 0-1, higher indic

73 imate the association between a neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation index (range [0, 1]; higher va

74 Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation is associated with adverse hea

75 We sought to determine if neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was associated with adherence

76 Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated w

77 age in Scotland by patient characteristics, socioeconomic deprivation, and duration of admission.

78 r than other risk factors such as ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and obesity, but provide a st

79 e range of relevant factors, including ACEs, socioeconomic deprivation, parental substance use, and m

80 a and increase with progressive neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation.

81 eru reduced child stunting owing to improved socioeconomic determinants, sustained implementation of

82 ructure of this network impacts not only the socioeconomic development of the concerned regions but a

83 idity burden in regions with lower levels of socioeconomic development.

84 measurements due to regional, cultural, and socioeconomic differences in language use.

85 The association between socioeconomic disadvantage and increased risk of depress

86 Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment progra

87 ntribution of early exposure to neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage to later depressive symptoms

88 High childhood socioeconomic disadvantage was also associated with the

89 Childhood socioeconomic disadvantage was assessed using data from

90 High childhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with an increa

91 meat consumption (7%). Conclusion: Childhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with multiple

92 We examined the association of childhood socioeconomic disadvantage with adulthood fatty liver an

93 Adulthood risk factors linking childhood socioeconomic disadvantage with fatty liver included wai

94 after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic re

95 on mediated of the total effect of childhood socioeconomic disadvantage, 45%), body mass index (40%),

96 eighborhoods, categorized as high versus low socioeconomic disadvantage.

97 Physicians should be aware that socioeconomic disparities can negatively impact the prog

98 ion for developing interventions to mitigate socioeconomic disparities in glycemic control.

99 dhood cancer fatalities, but demographic and socioeconomic disparities in these tumors have not been

100 n the absence of effect of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities on death.

101 ts to reduce and eliminate racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities.

102 mic with attendant morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic disruption.

103 older adults, across disease severities and socioeconomic distributions.

104 nment, survival bias, and lack of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity in this cohort.

105 size, and how ecological, evolutionary, and socioeconomic drivers of biodiversity scale with city si

106 ing on these interfaces, we demonstrate that socioeconomics, elevation and subsequent changes in habi

107 cenarios, and the framework of metacoupling (socioeconomic-environmental interactions within and acro

108 Greater priority should be given to socioeconomic equity in assessments of HIV-testing progr

109 ificance of examining research from a racial/socioeconomic equity lens.

110 not be explained by other psychological and socioeconomic factors (e.g., moods, personality, educati

111 blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine), and socioeconomic factors (health insurance, median househol

112 ions are robust to adjustment for family and socioeconomic factors (home ownership, mother and partne

113 ersisted even after controlling for multiple socioeconomic factors and household food insecurity.

114 Rationale: Socioeconomic factors are associated with worse disease

115 support, individual differences, and broader socioeconomic factors in shaping health outcomes, most n

116 adolescent health and the role of family and socioeconomic factors in these associations.

117 trated that environmental, host genetic, and socioeconomic factors influence the breast cancer preval

118 Socioeconomic factors may contribute to these disparitie

119 0.9-2.2, p = 0.13) We found no evidence that socioeconomic factors modified the associations of ACEs

120 serve as a starting point for investigating socioeconomic factors of irrigation expansion and may gu

121 dies have demonstrated effects of racial and socioeconomic factors on survival of adults with cancer.

122 borne infections, the role of sanitation and socioeconomic factors on the spatial variation of rotavi

123 lic databases to identify census tract-level socioeconomic factors predictive of driving distance and

124 ts (for example, for threatened species) and socioeconomic factors such as the capacity to conserve a

125 force framework model was used that combined socioeconomic factors that drive economic demand, epidem

126 and whether associations differ according to socioeconomic factors, and we estimate the proportion of

127 tion, diet diversity, food environments, and socioeconomic factors.

128 asingly recognized, but without attention to socioeconomic factors.

129 raphic, lifestyle, and (individual and area) socioeconomic factors.

130 scores were inferior to those from parental socioeconomic factors.

131 rding the damage curve, climate sensitivity, socioeconomic future, and mitigation costs.

132 lity perspective which is concerned with how socioeconomic, gender and ethnic disparities combine to

133 ong women (2.70, 2.04-3.57), within a higher socioeconomic group (for quartile 4 [highest group] 1.50

134 es; and whether these associations varied by socioeconomic group and social health insurance schemes.

135 expenditures persisted even among the higher socioeconomic groups and across all health insurance pro

136 hronic non-communicable disease in different socioeconomic groups and among those covered by differen

137 sed to a greater extent in higher than lower socioeconomic groups for stroke and ischaemic heart dise

138 Lower socioeconomic groups had higher case fatality rates for

139 Higher socioeconomic groups had higher hospitalisation rates, b

140 are use and health outcomes across different socioeconomic groups in the past decade.

141 fection rates among disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic groups(2-8) solely as the result of differ

142 eductions in case fatality rates than higher socioeconomic groups.

143 two decades might hide discrepancies across socioeconomic groups.

144 ar continental ice sheets represents a major socioeconomic hazard arising from anthropogenic warming,

145 virus (DENV) infection has had a significant socioeconomic impact on epidemic countries.

146 se with significant associated morbidity and socioeconomic impact, is undergoing a knowledge and prac

147 ean ecosystems, with profound ecological and socioeconomic impacts(1-8).

148 omenon in climate dynamics and its worldwide socioeconomic impacts.

149 , time living in Sao Paulo, daily commuting, socioeconomic index, and anthracosis (traffic-related bl

150 ear regression included age, sex, race, AHRQ socioeconomic index, Charlson comorbidity, Framingham st

151 Sex, AHRQ socioeconomic index, insurance status, and discharge dis

152 oronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities and overwhelming fragmented h

153 The progression of lifelong trajectories of socioeconomic inequalities in health and mortality begin

154 Subnational variation and socioeconomic inequalities in stunting outcomes persiste

155 Although relative socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of HIV testing in s

156 rveys done in sub-Saharan Africa to quantify socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of HIV testing, and

157 re likely an important mechanism translating socioeconomic inequalities into mental and physical heal

158 wealth and education groups, and quantified socioeconomic inequalities with both the relative and sl

159 workload decline-which evidently exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities.

160 ral mechanism for the health consequences of socioeconomic inequality in childhood.

161 Andes, and Amazonia accompanied cultural and socioeconomic interactions revealed by archeology.

162 After adjustment for demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, and morbidity factors, hospita

163 Covariates included demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, chronic disease, and medicatio

164 nd requires consideration of land and marine socioeconomic linkages inherent in rural economies.

165 nd addicted) and (3) the predictive power of socioeconomic markers (education, age, income, marital s

166 617 cognitive, behavioral, psychosocial, and socioeconomic measures revealed three population modes o

167 h outcomes attributable to ACEs or family or socioeconomic measures.

168 Chronic exposure to socioeconomic or environmental stressors associates with

169 g individuals who are chronically exposed to socioeconomic or environmental stressors, NBResilience (

170 velopment of health-related, functional, and socioeconomic outcomes following the diagnosis of sarcoi

171 are linked to differences in behaviours and socioeconomic outcomes.

172 er an intermediate-emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5 [SSP2-4.5]) and to 80% under

173 expansion under the framework of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs).

174 A large number of socioeconomic, phenotypic and psychological characterist

175 , which may be largely inaccessible to lower socioeconomic populations.

176 sted by age, sex, all other risk factors and socioeconomic position (wealth) using Cox proportional h

177 22 L, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.34) adjusted for age, socioeconomic position and infant and maternal character

178 antage was assessed using data from parents' socioeconomic position and socioeconomic circumstances i

179 en that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers.

180 as well as potential residual confounding by socioeconomic position, despite adjustments for househol

181 oped setting with less marked confounding by socioeconomic position.

182 d with previously-identified atmospheric and socioeconomic predictors, these slowly evolving oceanic

183 a more local perspective, shedding light on socioeconomic processes, inheritance rules, marriage pra

184 Prevalence in the poorest socioeconomic quintile was 3.7% (3.2-4.3) compared with

185 tressed Communities Index (DCI), a composite socioeconomic ranking by ZIP code, will predict risk-adj

186 the most versatile crops worldwide with high socioeconomic relevance.

187 The socioeconomic repercussions have fueled calls to lift th

188 ion efforts to improve the racial/ethnic and socioeconomic representativeness of AD studies.

189 Differential distribution of socioeconomic resources, stressors, and buffers may inte

190 unt by a factor of 1.1-4.9, across different socioeconomic scenarios over the century.

191 entially since the 1980s, resulting in major socioeconomic shifts in the region and two national stat

192 levels were hs-CRP (P < 0.001) and education socioeconomic status (P = 0.042).

193 Socioeconomic status (SES) and education (EDU) are pheno

194 ty, we assessed the relative contribution of socioeconomic status (SES) and genome-wide polygenic sco

195 ences and (2) considers mediating effects of socioeconomic status (SES) and measures of small vessel

196 the gut microbiome, focusing specifically on socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity.

197 and ethnic minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) face structural, health syste

198 relationships at higher and lower levels of socioeconomic status (SES) have been diverging steadily

199 The role of patient socioeconomic status (SES) in transplantation outcomes i

200 Genetic factors and socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities play a large rol

201 Although low socioeconomic status (SES) is related to poor glycemic c

202 nalyses (n = 65), we examined how gender and socioeconomic status (SES) may influence brain responses

203 ual- and neighborhood-level life-course (LC) socioeconomic status (SES) with incident dementia in the

204 ry artery disease, lower intelligence, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and poorer self-rated health

205 tina surgery, level of systemic comorbidity, socioeconomic status (SES), and rural versus urban resid

206 ures analyzed included the association among socioeconomic status (SES), distance to a transplant cen

207 ictors covering demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status (SES), electronic medical records,

208 Socioeconomic status (SES), often conceptualized as inco

209 Independent of socioeconomic status (SES), the quantity of CTs was uniq

210 HIV+) compared to age-, sex-, ethnicity- and socioeconomic status (SES)-matched HIV-negative controls

211 attainment is widely used as a surrogate for socioeconomic status (SES).

212 ypes, many of which are also associated with socioeconomic status (SES).

213 osed, such as communities of color and lower socioeconomic status (SES).

214 ghest among Whites and among those of higher socioeconomic status (SES).

215 Socioeconomic status affects surgical outcomes; however,

216 lp to better understand how contextual-level socioeconomic status affects the burden of sepsis-relate

217 Individuals with lower socioeconomic status also had significantly higher (210)

218 vice, higher Charlson comorbidity index, low socioeconomic status and admission at high volume center

219 Participants' socioeconomic status and clinical, sanitation, and food

220 The relationships between socioeconomic status and domestically acquired salmonell

221 city, as well as by social factors including socioeconomic status and geographic region.

222 nd common classifications of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and geographical region.

223 Overall, maternal BMI, along with maternal socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors in the second

224 t, whereas odds were increased by least poor socioeconomic status and living in an urban or periurban

225 Worse socioeconomic status and poor oral hygiene effectiveness

226 Differences in socioeconomic status and receipt of disproportionate sha

227 lities were mostly affected by neighbourhood socioeconomic status and wealth index.

228 terns were robust to alternative measures of socioeconomic status and were independent of age, sex, r

229 nce of these indicators and correlation with socioeconomic status are consistent with well recognised

230 ah, revealed a dietary divergence related to socioeconomic status as measured by cost of living, hous

231 we show that being female and higher family socioeconomic status at birth are strong and consistent

232 Findings held controlling for objective socioeconomic status both statistically and by cotwin de

233 nd brain-based responses in parents with low socioeconomic status change when rebates and lower taxes

234 ospital admission, pharmaceutical claim, and socioeconomic status databases.

235 There is a need to understand socioeconomic status differences for risk factors for do

236 ighbourhoods in which individuals with a low socioeconomic status encountered real-world reminders of

237 Although access to care and socioeconomic status have been traditional explanations

238 efits associated with the presence of a high-socioeconomic status immigrant group reduce xenophobic a

239 g efforts in communities where people of low socioeconomic status live and work would increase access

240 Individual adulthood socioeconomic status mediated the associations.

241 Lower socioeconomic status of a municipality, as indicated by

242 zed in 1) the negative impact of detrimental socioeconomic status on oral health changes over time, 2

243 These findings highlight the impact of socioeconomic status on surgical outcomes and should be

244 teins were more common in the diets of lower socioeconomic status populations than were plant-derived

245 Similar patterns were seen across the socioeconomic status spectrum in the Salt Lake Valley.

246 utions of neighborhood food availability and socioeconomic status to phosphorus control in patients r

247 Socioeconomic status was also linked to toothbrushing fr

248 In general, higher socioeconomic status was associated with higher phthalat

249 Race, age, and socioeconomic status were not independent predictors.

250 t in the home (likely a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status).

251 hospitalizations, 35% were in women with low socioeconomic status, 20% with underlying conditions, an

252 according to sex, age, ethnicity group, and socioeconomic status, and compare seroprevalence estimat

253 ntemporary temporal trends according to sex, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity are unknown.

254 anagement trends and variations by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity were described from

255 education level, marriage length, polygamy, socioeconomic status, and months between intervention an

256 otential confounders, including age, gender, socioeconomic status, and presence of comorbidities.

257 d by high economic activity, relatively high socioeconomic status, and risky sexual behaviour.

258 ounger maternal age at cancer diagnosis, low socioeconomic status, and rural residence among mothers

259 When adjusted for baseline age, socioeconomic status, and self-rated general health stat

260 ers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status, and sources of trust, were determi

261 stratified by ethnic group, age group, sex, socioeconomic status, and time period (<1998, 1999-2013,

262 usted for sex, age, smoking status, obesity, socioeconomic status, and time period by use of age-peri

263 Lower socioeconomic status, assessed using a summary measure,

264 lowing risk factors were analyzed: age, sex, socioeconomic status, birth weight, maternal age at birt

265 After adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, predisposing medica

266 e disproportionately felt by persons of poor socioeconomic status, contributing to health inequities.

267 ges were also assessed in subgroups based on socioeconomic status, defined by Socio-Economic Indexes

268 istory of allergic diseases, household size, socioeconomic status, delivery mode, antibiotic and prob

269 broad differences between countries such as socioeconomic status, demographic structure, rural vs. u

270 n the over 50s and lowest in people of lower socioeconomic status, despite a higher rate of primary c

271 Older age, lower socioeconomic status, diabetes, and cigarette smoking we

272 ion, older age, single marital status, lower socioeconomic status, higher PSA level, T1 and N0 stage,

273 ecific factors, including age, axial length, socioeconomic status, IOL model, and postoperative stero

274 clinical measurements and supplement data on socioeconomic status, lifestyle, behaviors, and environm

275 Asian or Pacific Islander, better socioeconomic status, lived in urban areas, married mari

276 education level, marriage length, polygamy, socioeconomic status, months between intervention and en

277 s study is to assess the relationships among socioeconomic status, pattern of dental visits, self-est

278 Analyses adjusted for sex, age, family socioeconomic status, polygenic risk score for cognitive

279 n maternal and paternal education, household socioeconomic status, sanitation conditions, maternal he

280 ontally evaluated and regularly assessed for socioeconomic status, serum lipids, high-sensitivity C-r

281 th, postmenstrual age at scan, maternal age, socioeconomic status, sex, and number of days on parente

282 Overall, neighbourhood socioeconomic status, wealth index, toilet types and sou

283 more frequently of Black race, from a lower socioeconomic status, with higher comorbidity, and admit

284 for maternal factors, birth parameters, and socioeconomic status, with results pooled using meta-ana

285 difference: +7.4 percentage-points) and low socioeconomic status-serving (1.38[1.35-1.40]; +7.3% per

286 in non-white ethnicities and people of lower socioeconomic status.

287 risk factor for exposure being low household socioeconomic status.

288 and the Economic Innovations Group to assess socioeconomic status.

289 gender, age, height, country of origin, and socioeconomic status.

290 s positively related to indicators of higher socioeconomic status.

291 nected to a survey of individuals with a low socioeconomic status.

292 associated with Indigenous ancestry and low socioeconomic status.

293 ention for ethnically diverse women with low socioeconomic status.

294 on of physical multimorbidity in relation to socioeconomic status; the association between physical m

295 The survival of patients with different socioeconomic statuses and bone metastasis statuses was

296 ction, role limitation and dependency of the socioeconomic subscale.

297 ategies that are robust to environmental and socioeconomic upheaval(7,8) are needed.

298 sarcoidosis, but the relative importance of socioeconomic variables on morbidity and disease burden

299 irst time in Nepal, potential geographic and socioeconomic variation in underweight and overweight an

300 cidence is high, with significant ethnic and socioeconomic variation.