Comparison of the two case subgroups supported this finding (OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.15 to 6.09).
Polytomous logistic regressions models were used to estimate associations between exposures and case subgroups (versus controls) according to grade (low grade: Gleason score < 7 or 3 + 4; high grade: Gleason score 4 + 3 or > 7) and clinical stage at diagnosis (tumor, nodes, metastases; localized stage: T1c or T2 and N0 and M0; advanced stage: T3 or T4, or N+ or M+).
The five case subgroups included 11 790 cases (table 4).
This provides a measure of phenotypic similarity between cases and enables the definition of case subgroups to assist the analysis of genotype data.
Subgrouping in cost-effectiveness is the focus of ongoing debate, largely concerning the use of particular variables for subgrouping rather than the case for subgrouping in principle.
Not all patients were tested with all of our measures, but, except for the CASE IV subgroup, we found no substantial difference between those with and without measurement.
We found no substantial differences between subgroups and the total patient population, and no differences between participants with missing values compared with participants with no missing values, except for a few small differences in the CASE IV subgroup.
We examined adjusted associations between maternal smoking in pregnancy with each case subgroup.
Subgroup analysis showed that the difference between the cases and control groups is based on the sporadic cases (P = 0.0001, OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.65 to 5.94).
While this might be true when comparing cases with controls as a whole, it did not adequately explain why pentosidine levels were different between the two subgroups of cases, namely, those with and without cataract, especially given that we did not observe any difference in eGFR values between the groups.
