ライフサイエンスコーパス: socioeconomic status

1 challenge virus, affectivity, and childhood socioeconomic status).

2 to 5.31] in the highest quartile of parental socioeconomic status).

3 (individually matched on age group, sex, and socioeconomic status).

4 (i.e., physical abuse, early neglect, or low socioeconomic status).

5 , and processed food than individuals of low socioeconomic status.

6 these resources are distributed by community socioeconomic status.

7 children and adolescents and those with low socioeconomic status.

8 should include all behaviours that vary with socioeconomic status.

9 e Framingham risk score, ethnicity/race, and socioeconomic status.

10 restrictions on age, sex, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

11 nting for differences in racial identity and socioeconomic status.

12 , including sex, food access, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

13 nical need, comorbidity, and community-level socioeconomic status.

14 , including English-language proficiency and socioeconomic status.

15 usting for confounders including obesity and socioeconomic status.

16 rth, with outcomes improving with increasing socioeconomic status.

17 sion, adjusted for age, sex, HIV status, and socioeconomic status.

18 immunodeficiency virus infection status, and socioeconomic status.

19 rhoods with varied levels of walkability and socioeconomic status.

20 child's previous abilities and the parents' socioeconomic status.

21 ient's insurance, geographical location, and socioeconomic status.

22 respective of nationality, ethnic origin, or socioeconomic status.

23 home environment, maternal intelligence, and socioeconomic status.

24 tobacco use, childhood health, and childhood socioeconomic status.

25 professionals with a relatively homogeneous socioeconomic status.

26 fied by seasonal temperatures and ecological socioeconomic status.

27 ial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status.

28 usted for disease severities, lifestyle, and socioeconomic status.

29 lusters of BCCs, adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

30 rdless of age, gender, race, creed, color or socioeconomic status.

31 cer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status.

32 unexposed children matched for sex, age, and socioeconomic status.

33 not limited to sex, culture, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

34 ntal factors could be involved, for example, socioeconomic status.

35 to early life exposures, air pollution, and socioeconomic status.

36 rehabilitation care than people with higher socioeconomic status.

37 sparities in educational outcomes related to socioeconomic status.

38 that are less strongly related to countries' socioeconomic status.

39 nority race and ethnicity, and disadvantaged socioeconomic status.

40 tent significant associations with household socioeconomic status.

41 Oral health status is correlated with socioeconomic status.

42 getables, fish, and fibre than those of high socioeconomic status.

43 moking, followed by physical inactivity then socioeconomic status.

44 s with cardiovascular health might depend on socioeconomic status.

45 g factors and adjusted for comorbidities and socioeconomic status.

46 dence of effect modification by age, sex, or socioeconomic status.

47 nder and development, controlling for family socioeconomic status.

48 unit lower score (95% CI, -3.17 to -0.40) in socioeconomic status.

49 r alcohol-related death, with adjustment for socioeconomic status.

50 , taking into account the moderating role of socioeconomic status.

51 d boys when living in households with higher socioeconomic status (2.87 points [0.27 to 5.47] in the

52 [54.8%]), married (293 [59.4%]), and of low socioeconomic status (322 [65.3%]).

53 general cognitive ability ( 3.5%) and family socioeconomic status ( 7%).

54 general cognitive ability (~3.5%) and family socioeconomic status (~7%).

55 er adjustment for age, sex, and neighborhood socioeconomic status, a pattern of 5 discrete geographic

56 her the harmful effects of alcohol differ by socioeconomic status, accounting for alcohol consumption

57 sure to poverty and brain development in low socioeconomic status African American individuals from t

58 for maternal body mass index, delivery year, socioeconomic status, age, parity, and comorbid conditio

59 cancer risk may be inversely associated with socioeconomic status among African-American women and hi

60 o greenness and mortality risks, by personal socioeconomic status among individuals living in general

61 t for relevant psychiatric comorbidities and socioeconomic status, an almost doubled hazard of violen

62 hospital admission, region of residence and socioeconomic status and 'followed up' by record linkage

63 High socioeconomic status and any maternal education were ass

64 y review evidence on the association between socioeconomic status and harmful use of alcohol, tobacco

65 39), from whom we obtained information about socioeconomic status and health status in 2010 (i.e., pr

66 Differences in socioeconomic status and health-care access play a key r

67 It is possible that a higher socioeconomic status and healthier diet may protect the

68 ate concentrations reported higher levels of socioeconomic status and increased fresh fruit and veget

69 Associations between socioeconomic status and increasing burden of mortality

70 The influences of neighborhood socioeconomic status and marital status suggest that soc

71 The association between socioeconomic status and non-communicable disease behavi

72 ly adversity, in the form of abuse, neglect, socioeconomic status and other adverse experiences, is a

73 largely explained by women's differences in socioeconomic status and out-of-pocket medication costs.

74 We investigated the association between socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer in African-Ameri

75 roughly characterize the association between socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer.

76 scent population and their associations with socioeconomic status and participation in federal food a

77 standing of the complex relationship between socioeconomic status and pediatric health outcomes for A

78 ional hazards regression models adjusted for socioeconomic status and potential risk factors were use

79 measures, PCI readmission is associated with socioeconomic status and race.

80 dels adjusted for age, sex, chronic disease, socioeconomic status and smoking social integration was

81 ilt environment and pollution, as well as by socioeconomic status and social networks.

82 The latest evidence on socioeconomic status and stroke shows that stroke not on

83 iverse Hispanic population and suggests that socioeconomic status and structural factors, such as res

84 We estimated the association of socioeconomic status and the 25 x 25 risk factors with a

85 Individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status and the association between air pol

86 MICs presenting data on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and tobacco use, alcohol use, diet,

87 ID prevalence varied depending on socioeconomic status and type of milk fed (i.e., human o

88 ital health interventions; the importance of socioeconomic status and universal health coverage.

89 to study moderation of differences by family socioeconomic status and wealth, and structural equation

90 leton pregnancies of women of high or middle socioeconomic status and without known environmental con

91 xplained by the racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic status and/or cardiovascular risk factors.

92 tient-level factors (including age, sex, and socioeconomic status) and practice-level factors (includ

93 ysis, inflammation, vitamin A insufficiency, socioeconomic status, and age were also significantly as

94 ervical cancer, yet where a woman lives, her socioeconomic status, and agency largely determines whet

95 ocked villages on the basis of network size, socioeconomic status, and baseline rates of water purifi

96 ssion models adjusted for age, sex, smoking, socioeconomic status, and body mass index were used to e

97 ees North, independent of race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and body mass index.

98 itions, lifestyle and disability indicators, socioeconomic status, and body weight.

99 index injury after adjustment for age group, socioeconomic status, and chronic conditions.

100 tality, school records, residential history, socioeconomic status, and chronic disease and reproducti

101 tion and amputation rates according to race, socioeconomic status, and geographic region.

102 Information on age, sex, socioeconomic status, and history of digit-sucking habit

103 TEC-contaminated environments, demographics, socioeconomic status, and immunity.

104 of covariates, such as health behaviors and socioeconomic status, and left-censoring to explore reve

105 ities in control of CVD risk factors by sex, socioeconomic status, and level of disability.

106 for maternal and pregnancy characteristics, socioeconomic status, and maternal and paternal cardiova

107 maternal or parental psychiatric disorders, socioeconomic status, and other covariates.

108 ng, stunting, underweight, inflammation, low socioeconomic status, and poor sanitation were each asso

109 rgy intake, sex, physical activity, smoking, socioeconomic status, and stress.

110 part accounted for by patient comorbidities, socioeconomic status, and surgeon, hospital, and care fa

111 , age, calendar period, cohabitation status, socioeconomic status, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index

112 ity values of private gardens in relation to socioeconomic status, and the decline in sizes of privat

113 d be focused on females, subjects from lower socioeconomic status, and those with physical disabiliti

114 o be young, to be black, to be of the lowest socioeconomic status, and to have the highest severity o

115 sparities related to racial/ethnic identity, socioeconomic status, and tumor biology.

116 for age, race, body-mass index, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and urban residency.

117 ingivitis was increased in children with low socioeconomic status (AOR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.32 to 3.31; P

118 the recognition that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by

119 tries, evidence shows that people with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to receive good-qua

120 depend on the way that both oral health and socioeconomic status are measured.

121 Oral health inequalities associated with socioeconomic status are widely observed but may depend

122 c populations with comparable lifestyles and socioeconomic status as African Americans (Hispanic para

123 kers to consider depressive symptoms and low socioeconomic status as synergistic cardiovascular risk

124 s examined the association between community socioeconomic status (assessed by median household incom

125 associated with lower cognitive function and socioeconomic status at age 38 years and with declines i

126 A lower socioeconomic status at birth, frequent consumption of a

127 e attention in preschool children from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds.

128 onfidence interval, 0.16-0.65; P=0.001), and socioeconomic status (beta coefficient=0.10; 95% confide

129 th involvement of hormonal changes with age, socioeconomic status, birth characteristics, and pathoge

130 nalyses adjusted for comorbid conditions and socioeconomic status, blacks had a higher risk for hyper

131 confounding variables (demographics, current socioeconomic status, body mass index, season, baseline

132 Confederate race and socioeconomic status, both of which were randomized, are

133 s associated with delays in TTC included low socioeconomic status, breast reconstruction, nonprivate

134 [6.51]; Cohen d, -0.45) after adjusting for socioeconomic status, cannabis use, and common mental di

135 a greater risk of harm in individuals of low socioeconomic status compared with those of higher statu

136 sical activity, abdominal adiposity, gender, socioeconomic status, culture) than genetic factors.

137 Socioeconomic status data for each individual's county o

138 intervening self-poisoning episodes, higher socioeconomic status, depression, and recent psychiatric

139 Controlling for age, sex, APOEepsilon4, socioeconomic status, depression, anxiety, and social ne

140 x, apolipoprotein E epsilon4 (APOEepsilon4), socioeconomic status, depression, anxiety, and social ne

141 and after multivariable adjustment for age, socioeconomic status, depressive symptoms, health-relate

142 verity (asthma duration, age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status) did not associate with exacerbatio

143 To illustrate this potential, I move beyond socioeconomic status differences in behavior and apply C

144 bably multifactorial and associated with low socioeconomic status, drug and alcohol misuse, ethnic or

145 for maternal IQ, childhood IQ, and childhood socioeconomic status, each 5-microg/dL higher level of b

146 c and behavioral factors (being male, higher socioeconomic status, early dating, more externalizing b

147 llect information about demographic factors, socioeconomic status (education, income, and employment)

148 sted for demographic, health, and individual socioeconomic status (education, income, lifetime occupa

149 risk factors (age, sex, immigration status, socioeconomic status, education, and substance misuse) f

150 for age, sex, urban or rural residence, and socioeconomic status, elevated AGP was positively associ

151 as well as information about comorbidities, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and region.

152 Confounding by parental socioeconomic status explained little of the increased r

153 er blood lead levels and a decline in IQ and socioeconomic status from childhood to adulthood was obs

154 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0.005), with a stronger

155 The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivati

156 I(2)=0%, p=0.4662), but was null in the high socioeconomic status group (1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.25, inci

157 ng hours and diabetes was evident in the low socioeconomic status group (risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.06

158 th effects, but whether this is true for all socioeconomic status groups is unclear.

159 00 to 2010 for all of the race-ethnicity and socioeconomic status groups, including a decrease from 1

160 Participants with low socioeconomic status had greater mortality compared with

161 re to air pollution by race-ethnicity and by socioeconomic status have been documented in the United

162 Race and socioeconomic status have been implicated in disparities

163 We used individual data for socioeconomic status (Health Behaviour in School-aged Ch

164 Age, denture use, socioeconomic status, health status, and health behavior

165 e with higher educational level, middle/high socioeconomic status, history of diabetes and hypertensi

166 mental determinants (ie, parental education, socioeconomic status, home environment, and maternal dep

167 ated the novel ADH1B associations related to socioeconomic status (household gross income and highest

168 (not in children <5 years), time period, and socioeconomic status (household wealth) quintile for HIV

169 ldren who were physically abused or from low socioeconomic status households.

170 y ethnic backgrounds and those living in low-socioeconomic-status households being disproportionately

171 ater mortality compared with those with high socioeconomic status (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.38-1.45 for men;

172 00, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.21 to -0.16]), sex and socioeconomic status (HR, 0.975 [95% CI, 0.973-0.978]; d

173 re is associated with cognitive function and socioeconomic status in adulthood and with changes in IQ

174 dicted by the following variables: household socioeconomic status in childhood, extended absence of a

175 ace/ethnicity, maternal BMI, study site, and socioeconomic status.In this study, 214 infants (78%) we

176 1.4; 95% CI=1.1-1.6), as well as with lower socioeconomic status (incidence rate ratio: 1.3; 95% CI=

177 65 years of age and older, and indicators of socioeconomic status including poverty, education, incom

178 ective cohort studies with information about socioeconomic status, indexed by occupational position,

179 so higher in counties with the following low socioeconomic status indicators: higher vs. lower povert

180 Low socioeconomic status individuals may possess limited cap

181 of both genetic and nongenetic factors (eg, socioeconomic status, intake of sugar-sweetened beverage

182 sent-oriented behavior associated with a low socioeconomic status is an adaptive response to having r

183 ovascular risk factors, serological studies, socioeconomic status, left ventricular structure, and me

184 levels were observed among children from all socioeconomic status levels in this cohort.

185 endent of geographical region, demographics, socioeconomic status, lifestyles, and clinical character

186 nd gender on DAA receipt after adjusting for socioeconomic status, liver disease severity, comorbidit

187 We classified individuals by socioeconomic status (low, medium, or high) using two in

188 sex, age x sex interaction, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital status, referral source, a

189 ear whether the subjective experience of low socioeconomic status may alone be sufficient to stimulat

190 Individuals of low socioeconomic status, minority religions, and minority t

191 gression, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, neighborhood-level deprivation, an

192 1.16:4.35) after adjustment for age, gender, socioeconomic status, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug

193 Neighborhood socioeconomic status (NSES) is associated with cognitive

194 al confounding variables, including maternal socioeconomic status, obstetric complications, obesity,

195 AIS, even after adjusting for age, race, and socioeconomic status (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence in

196 interaction between EduYears GPS and family socioeconomic status on educational achievement or on ge

197 Few studies have assessed the effect of socioeconomic status on HIV treatment outcomes in settin

198 ved, nor were they driven by factors such as socioeconomic status or health.

199 latitude, independent of race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or body mass index.

200 ects could not be accounted for by childhood socioeconomic status, personality traits, or adult depre

201 king, alcohol, education (as a surrogate for socioeconomic status), physical activity, psychosocial v

202 gingivitis, and association among age, sex, socioeconomic status, presence of digit-sucking habits,

203 Socioeconomic status (primary outcome) was assessed at a

204 nce (IRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.35); lower socioeconomic status quintiles (IRRs, 1.09 to 1.29); com

205 ample" that approximates the distribution of socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and sex in the U.S

206 ite peers, attributed in part to their lower socioeconomic status, reduced access to care, and possib

207 Here we show that the mere feeling of lower socioeconomic status relative to others stimulates appet

208 plore the effects of sex; educational level; socioeconomic status; residence area; occupation type; m

209 lyses were stratified by body mass index and socioeconomic status.Scenarios 1 and 2 showed reductions

210 than 90 years (2.20, 2.09-2.29), and of low socioeconomic status (Scottish Index of Multiple Depriva

211 Purpose Previous US studies have shown that socioeconomic status (SES) affects survival in acute mye

212 Differences in genetic ancestry and socioeconomic status (SES) among Latin American populati

213 NHBs and Hispanics reported lower socioeconomic status (SES) and higher prevalence of obes

214 The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and obesity is well documente

215 iterature documents associations between low socioeconomic status (SES) and poor health outcomes, inc

216 The association between socioeconomic status (SES) and subclinical cardiovascula

217 Associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and substance abuse are somet

218 examined the association between lifecourse socioeconomic status (SES) and the risk of type 2 diabet

219 epregnancy BMI (P < 0.001), and lower family socioeconomic status (SES) at time of birth (P = 0.001),

220 in early learning experiences across diverse socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, particularly whe

221 cknesses in all neighborhoods categorized by socioeconomic status (SES) between 1988-1992 and 1998-20

222 ese adaptations under conditions such as low socioeconomic status (SES) can have negative consequence

223 Lifestyle and family socioeconomic status (SES) data were obtained from quest

224 Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) display increased attentivene

225 e on cognition for children raised in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families, including recent pr

226 Low socioeconomic status (SES) has been linked to a higher i

227 Complex associations exist among socioeconomic status (SES) in early life, beliefs about

228 Low socioeconomic status (SES) is a known risk factor for he

229 Socioeconomic status (SES) is a significant determinant

230 Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with asthma mor

231 Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with earlier on

232 ertemporal discounting in individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) may arise as a rational metac

233 paying increased attention to the effects of socioeconomic status (SES) on children's health.

234 Prospective data on effects of childhood socioeconomic status (SES) on measures of LV structure a

235 o determine the roles of race, sex, age, and socioeconomic status (SES) on survival rates based on th

236 vestigate the role that genetic ancestry and socioeconomic status (SES) play in the epidemiology of t

237 es in gene methylation associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES) predict changes in risk-relat

238 Both early life and adult socioeconomic status (SES) predict late-life level of me

239 ith higher proportions of nonwhite and lower-socioeconomic status (SES) residents.

240 ether a 9p21.3 common variant interacts with socioeconomic status (SES) to influence CAC and incident

241 mmended that performance measures adjust for socioeconomic status (SES) when SES is a risk factor for

242 negative associations of black race and low socioeconomic status (SES) with long-term outcomes of pa

243 Many behavioral and psychological effects of socioeconomic status (SES), beyond those presented by Pe

244 's educational achievement is their family's socioeconomic status (SES), but the degree to which this

245 Parents responded to queries related to socioeconomic status (SES), family structure, number of

246 Family and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), measured at baseline, were a

247 scounting" is an appropriate response to low socioeconomic status (SES), or deprivation.

248 uster of behaviours is associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES), which we call "the behaviour

249 Human beings differ in their socioeconomic status (SES), with accompanying difference

250 h and eye care is related to an individual's socioeconomic status (SES).

251 es the difference in prostate cancer risk by socioeconomic status (SES).

252 may be partially explained by confounding by socioeconomic status (SES).

253 taxes in the entire sample and stratified by socioeconomic status (SES).

254 for race, sex, smoking, body mass index, and socioeconomic status (SES).

255 ntrinsic or extrinsic, depending on people's socioeconomic status (SES)?

256 nce of present-oriented thinking among lower-socioeconomic-status (SES) groups and overlook key socia

257 ward after some delay) between high- and low-socioeconomic-status (SES) populations.

258 th beliefs, dental behaviors, and subjective socioeconomic status [SES]) and environmental factors (S

259 Demographics and socioeconomic status should not be necessarily part of t

260 ce rate ratios (IRRs) adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol abuse, medication

261 Adjusted (age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, comorbidity, and medicati

262 od conventional cardiovascular risk factors, socioeconomic status, social support, and depressive sym

263 74) were observed in sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic status subgroups, and in sensitivity analy

264 ly induced to feel low (vs. high or neutral) socioeconomic status subsequently exhibited greater auto

265 while controlling for participants' current socioeconomic status, suggesting that obesity is rooted

266 (P = 0.027) at follow-up independent of sex, socioeconomic status, Tanner stage, monitor wear time, o

267 idities, younger age at diagnosis, and lower socioeconomic status than non-black women.

268 for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis mortality and socioeconomic status that persisted from 2001 to 2013.

269 In an analysis stratified by socioeconomic status, the association between long worki

270 udy, we aimed to compare the contribution of socioeconomic status to mortality and years-of-life-lost

271 years or older was standardised for sex and socioeconomic status to the standard Scottish population

272 assess the associations after adjustment for socioeconomic status, traditional risk factors, body mas

273 assess the associations, with adjustment for socioeconomic status, traditional vascular disease risk

274 whom 47514 (5%) immigrated since 1985, sex, socioeconomic status, urban (vs rural) residence, and ca

275 ve findings related to psychological traits, socioeconomic status, vascular/metabolic conditions, and

276 The confounding influence of parental socioeconomic status was also explored.

277 Neighborhood socioeconomic status was an important factor in all canc

278 Low socioeconomic status was associated consistently with st

279 Low socioeconomic status was associated with a 2.1-year redu

280 Socioeconomic status was based on the family income to p

281 Socioeconomic status was characterized as annual income

282 Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multipl

283 lation between alcohol-attributable harm and socioeconomic status was investigated for four measures

284 Low neighborhood socioeconomic status was not associated with decreased d

285 Low socioeconomic status was predictive of longitudinal rebo

286 Each of the four measures of lower socioeconomic status was strongly associated with non-ad

287 Socioeconomic status was unrelated to BMIz (95% CI, -0.2

288 Adjusting for age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, we calculated hazard ratios for ca

289 macrostructural forms of inequality, such as socioeconomic status; we examine how temporary exposure

290 ion in women younger than 18 years and lower socioeconomic status weakened slightly between Natsal-2

291 dence rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status were estimated by Poisson regressio

292 and thirty controls matched by age, sex, and socioeconomic status were evaluated using direct blood s

293 Increasing age and low socioeconomic status were factors that significantly inc

294 old between the lowest and highest levels of socioeconomic status, whether defined by poverty or educ

295 ortality differs according to race, sex, and socioeconomic status with black individuals and lower-in

296 ential effect modifiers (e.g., age, sex, and socioeconomic status), with adjustment for day of the we

297 ity, smoking, and individual- and area-level socioeconomic status), women living in the highest quint

298 ighborhood- and individual-level measures of socioeconomic status work together to play an important

299 l deprivation history, smoking, drinking and socioeconomic status, working-age men in fast-privatised

300 besity, maternal diabetes, mode of delivery, socioeconomic status, year and country of birth, and urb

301 MI, education, smoking status, and estimated socioeconomic status (ZIP codes).