To analyse compliance, the distribution of several indices was compared between the two age subgroups.
The results from the per protocol and intention to treat analysis were similar, and evidence was lacking of a difference in the effect of the intervention between the two age subgroups.
When relating mortality risk to the initial 12-month fall in A1C (Fig. 3 C and D ), we could not conclude that the shape of the lines between the two age subgroups were different within intensive (P = 0.24) or standard (P = 0.23) arms; however, the location of the lines were higher for older participants in both intensive (P = 0.03) and standard (P < 0.01) arms.
Because of the strong association between age and patient/control-status, we chose to compare two age subgroups of patients, 19 33 years and 34 40 years, in order to control for the effect of age.
The sample consisted of two age subgroups: younger age subgroup (13 to 18 years of age; n = 31) and older age subgroup (19 to 24 years of age; n = 31).
Type 1 diabetes incidence rates (IRs) and 95% CIs were estimated per 100,000 persons per year, among all children aged between 0 and 14 years, and in three age subgroups: 0 to 4, 5 to 9 and 10 to 14 years old.
No significant difference was noticed between boys and girls, either for overall type 1 diabetes incidence, or in the three age subgroups over this period (Table 1).
To analyze the possible association between age and gray matter volume in anatomical networks, we used a linear regression analysis based on four age subgroups (45 55, 55 65, 65 75, and 75 85 years).
For the four age subgroup analyses, all pooled results are from random-effects models.
We stratified all these patients by age, i.e., 30 39, 40 49, 50 59 and over 60 years; the four islet autoantibodies did not show any statistical differences between these age subgroups.
