KC was PI of the study and planned, organized, and supervised animal experiments, hormone stimulation of prostate, the carcinogenesis study, and evaluation of morphological alterations in various prostate lobes; KC also evaluated the data and wrote the manuscript, which all authors have read and approved.
Since the various recombination detection methods that are available may yield different results, we also evaluated the data with the InSites algorithm (http://indra.mullins.microbiol.washington.edu/cgi-bin/InSites/index.cgi), which has been used to detect recombinant sequences by visual inspection of shared nucleotide sites in an alignment [39].
HF wrote the first draft and also evaluated the data.
In addition, to the analysis by geNorm we also evaluated the data with NormFinder algorithm (Table 4).
To assess potential bias, we also evaluated the data of the 43 patients who were lost to follow-up.
We also evaluated the data base available from a previous review of community-based interventions to address perinatal outcomes [ 51].
We also evaluated the data using Poisson regression, but results were equivalent to the logistic regression, so only those risk estimates are presented.
To demonstrate risk factors associated with suboptimal posttransplant outcomes, the same authors also evaluated the data for all patients who did not survive to 10 years [ 31].
In addition to the analysis of expression in specific organs, which was presented above, we also evaluated the data of studies in different geographic locations and the data of studies using different antibodies.
We also evaluated the data for residual confounding by including age as a continuous variable in the regression models (controls were matched to cases within 5 years of age) and found no evidence of this bias (data not shown).
Therefore we also evaluated the data by reducing the number of Nuuk control subjects by matching the age and BMI with the cases in Nuuk to obtain similar cases/control ratio as for the other regions.
