The combined carrier frequency of the 'pathogenic variants' was as high as 9.4% in PD patients and significantly more frequent than in controls (0.37%) with a markedly high odds ratio of 28.0 (95% CI, 7.3 to 238.3) for PD patients compared with controls.
There were also differences in the capture of comorbidities between AF and non-AF patients, as evidenced by the markedly higher prevalence odds ratios for valvular heart disease, hypertension, and sleep apnea in the MG-EMR data set compared with the MS-Claims data set (Table 3).
The adjusted odds ratios for most risk factors were similar to crude odds ratios, including a markedly higher excess risk of HIV infection from HSV-2 infection in males and females.
Women with preeclampsia were also at markedly higher risk of having low-birth-weight (adjusted odds ratio, 4.14; 95% confidence interval, 3.32-5.15) and small-for-gestational-age (adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.92-3.41) babies.
In addition, the detection frequency of P. gingivalis in NASH patients was markedly higher than that in the non-NAFLD subjects (52.0%, odds ratio: 3.91).
Interestingly, the detection frequency of P. gingivalis in the patients with NASH was also markedly higher than that in the non-NAFLD control subjects (52.0%; odds ratio: 3.91, in Figure 1B).
Nevertheless, conversely, cesarean rate secondary to CPD was markedly higher among the nulliparous group (12.2 vs. 2.7%; p < 0.001, odds ratio of 4.9).
In comparison, the odds ratio for breast cancer and family history was markedly higher among women who believed that heredity contributes "a lot" (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.6) and not elevated among others (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.1).
The odds ratio for breast cancer and family history was markedly higher among women who believed that heredity contributes "a lot" (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.9, 3.6) and not elevated among others (OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.5, 1.1, interaction term P < 0.01).
At enrollment, for both initial unconditional logistic regression (data not shown), and proportional odds modeling (Table 2), AHS swine-exposed and AHS nonswine-exposed participants had markedly higher distributions of antibody titers against both swine influenza viruses compared to university controls.
