The phrase "adjustment data not" is not correct and does not form a coherent expression in written English.
It may be intended to convey a negation regarding adjustment data, but it lacks clarity and context.
Example: "The report indicates that adjustment data not included in the analysis may lead to inaccurate results."
Alternatives: "adjustment data excluded" or "adjustment data absent".
Since these adjustments had only minor effects on the associations and significance levels obtained without adjustment (i.e. we never observed significance in the unadjusted data that was not also present after adjustment; data not shown), stepwise and interaction analyses were performed without adjusting for these parameters.
We also carried out age, gender- and BMI-adjusted analysis using a logistic regression model, and confirmed similar association after adjustment (data not shown).
The sensitivity analyses for BMI-SDS with adjustment for sex and age yielded virtually identical results compared to those without adjustment (data not shown).
Results were not sensitive to creatinine adjustment (data not shown).
The risks associated with the other variants studied remained non-significant following adjustment (data not shown).
Results remained unchanged in models with extended adjustment (data not shown).
In our descriptive phase of analysis, we found that the geometric mean levels of PFOA and PFHxS were significantly higher in participants receiving fertility treatment for the index pregnancy than those of untreated participants, and this was maintained after age-adjustment (data not shown).
For women, there were no statistically significant associations between working conditions and BMI after including DCM and ERI, independently or in combination, along with socio-demographic adjustments (data not shown).
However, comedocarcinoma, other and NOS carcinoma were generally diagnosed at a more advanced stage than other morphologic categories, and their RERs decreased from 0.55 to 0.34, from 1.57 to 1.38 and from 1.16 to 1.08, respectively, after these adjustments (data not shown).
This exercise test was performed to determine aerobic capacity and ET intensity at the beginning of the exercise protocol (initial evaluation), after 4 weeks (to training intensity adjustments, data not show), and after ET protocol (final evaluation and aerobic capacity evaluation).
We found that neither creatinine nor arsenobetaine adjustment altered our estimates: Results were unchanged with or without creatinine adjustment {i.e., SBP β12 0.15 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.02, 0.29] with creatinine adjustment}, as well as with or without arsenobetaine adjustment [i.e., SBP β12 0.15 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.29) with arsenobetaine adjustment] (data not shown).
