ライフサイエンスコーパス: cohort effect

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

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

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

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

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

6 growth trajectories after accounting for the cohort effect.

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

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

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

10 younger participants, suggesting a possible cohort effect.

11 sk factor adjustment for analyzing the birth cohort effect.

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

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

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

15 and declined thereafter, suggesting a birth cohort effect.

16 carefully interpreted in light of the birth cohort effect.

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

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

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

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

21 ider the possible explanations of period and cohort effects.

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

23 butable to calendar period rather than birth cohort effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36 No cohort effects could be discerned for caries.

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

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

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

40 5, -0.27) and then a continuously increasing cohort effect during the remainder of the 20th century t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

57 Cohort effects, new sex partnerships, and human papillom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 A temporal cohort effect was present.

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

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

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

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