Correcting for measurement errors did not alter the results substantially, nor did exclusion of early cancer cases.
Inclusion of location, residence on a farm, and maternal age did not change the association with DDE, nor did exclusion of any of the other variables in the model or the alternative use of maternal social class instead of education.
Inclusion of age into the model did not change the results, nor did exclusion of 163 Ashkenazi Jewish women, who were overrepresented in cases and might have harbored a founder mutation (results not shown).
Adjusting for other potential confounders did not materially alter the associations (Table 2; Additional file 3: Table S3) and neither did exclusion of the first 2 years of follow-up (Additional file 4: Table S4).
Adjustment for education or overall pesticide use did not appreciably alter effect estimates, nor did exclusion of 28 cases and 6 controls with proxy interviews or inclusion of 3 atypical parkinsonism cases.
Excluding waist-to-hip ratio from the full model as others did (14– 17) resulted in even stronger associations with air pollution (HR 1.05 [95% CI 1.02 1.10]) as did exclusion of BMI (1.08 [1.08–1.08]).
Excluding participants who followed a diet did not change the results (model 3, total protein 1.51 [1.11–2.06]) nor did exclusion of participants with baseline cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia (1.68 [1.68–2.43]).
Further adjustment for other PFAAs, for anemia, or for diagnosed osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia or did not alter these associations, nor did exclusion of those with low hemoglobin levels (N = 2391, including 41 CRC cases).
In addition using tobit instead of logistic regression, which allowed BNP to be treated as a continuous left-censored variable, revealed very similar effects, as did exclusion of men with angina.
With adjustment for eGFR only and with adjustment to HbA1c among diabetic groups, the pattern of mean cystatin C levels and statistical significance of differences remained unchanged.> Using a linear model, instead of additive as the sensitivity analysis, did not change the conclusions or statistical significance, nor did exclusion of subjects with CKD.
