Proportions of reward allocations rejected in Experiments 1 (social) and 2 (nonsocial).

<p>Rejections are shown for the disadvantageous inequity condition (A and B) and the advantageous inequity condition (C and D). Within condition, rejections are shown by equal distribution (1–1, A and C) and unequal distribution (1–4 of 4–1, B and D). Participants were assigned either to the disadvantageous inequity condition or to the advantageous inequity condition. Within condition, participants received six equal trials and six unequal trials. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Proportion of reward allocations rejected in Experiment 1, in which reward allocations were either generated deliberately by the experimenter or randomly generated by a deck of cards.

<p>Rejections are shown for the disadvantageous inequity condition (A) and the advantageous inequity condition (B). Participants were assigned either to the disadvantageous inequity condition (<i>N</i>  =  64 pairs) or to the advantageous inequity condition (<i>N</i>  =  60 pairs). In the disadvantageous inequity condition, participants received one piece of candy while either one piece (equal distribution) or four pieces (unequal distribution) were placed on the recipient’s side of the apparatus. In the advantageous inequity condition, participants received either one piece of candy (equal distribution) or four pieces (unequal distribution) while one piece was placed on the recipient’s side of the apparatus. In both the disadvantageous inequity and advantageous inequity conditions, participants received three of each trial type: 1) deliberate equal; 2) random equal; 3) deliberate unequal and 4) random unequal. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Description of predictor variables used in analyses of children’s decisions to accept or reject reward allocations in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.

1<p>Variable is unique to Experiment 1.</p>2<p>Variable is unique to Experiment 2.</p

Photograph of apparatus used in these studies.

<p>Deciders sat on the left side of the apparatus and could operate the handles while the partner (if present) sat on the right side of the apparatus. Pulling the green handle caused the trays to tip outwards, delivering candies to the two outside bowls (“accepting an offer”). Pulling the red handle caused the trays to tip inwards, delivering candy to the inside bowl (“rejecting an offer”).</p

MOESM1 of Identifying genetic variants underlying medication-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer and osteoporosis: a case control study

Additional file 1. Suuplementary information

Proportion of reward allocations rejected in Experiment 2, the nonsocial version of the Inequity Game.

<p>Rejections are shown for the disadvantageous inequity condition (A) and the advantageous inequity condition (B). Participants were assigned either to the disadvantageous inequity condition (<i>N</i>  =  98) or to the advantageous inequity condition (<i>N</i>  =  103). In the disadvantageous inequity condition, participants received one piece of candy while either one piece (equal distribution) or four pieces (unequal distribution) were placed on the other side of the apparatus. In the advantageous inequity condition, participants received either one piece of candy (equal distribution) or four pieces (unequal distribution) while one piece was placed on the other side of the apparatus. In both the disadvantageous inequity and advantageous inequity conditions, participants received six equal and six unequal trials. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Clinical features of the study population according to ethnicity and <i>PNPLA3</i> rs738409 genotype.

*<p> = log transformed and adjusted for age, gender, BMI, glucose tolerance. ** = Square root transformed and adjusted for age, gender, BMI, glucose tolerance. GT  =  glucose tolerance. NGT =  normal glucose tolerance, IGT =  impaired glucose tolerance, T2D  =  type 2 diabetes.</p

Interaction between <i>PNPLA3</i> rs738409 and n-6/n-3 PUFA in modulating ALT levels.

<p>The figure shows a different degree of regression between ALT (log10) and n-6/n-3 PUFA (log10) in the three genotypes. In the CC (Panel A) and CG (Panel B) group there was no association between ALT and n-6/n-3 PUFA (r2 = 0.0006, p = 0.91 and r2 = 0.015, p = 0.21 respectively). Only in the GG group (Panel C) there was a strong association between HFF% and n-6/n-3 PUFA (r2 =  0.40, p = 0.006).</p

Interaction between <i>PNPLA3</i> rs738409 and n-6/n-3 PUFA in modulating HFF%.

<p>The figure shows a different degree of regression between HFF% (square root) and n-6/n-3 PUFA (log10) in the three genotypes. In the CC (Panel A) and CG (Panel B) group there was no association between HFF% and n-6/n-3 PUFA (r2 = 0.0004, p = 0.86 and r2 = 0.018, p = 0.39, respectively). Only in the GG group (Panel C) there was a strong association between HFF% and n-6/n-3 PUFA (r2 =  0.45, p = 0.001).</p

Comparison of damage visualization with TXM compared to micro-CT scanning.

<p>Comparison of micro-CT with TXM images of similar region of interest in notched cortical beam samples. In all images white areas indicate high attenuating lead uranyl acetate, grey represents bone and black represents background. First image (A) shows micro-CT scan of staining, second (B) is TXM imaged binned to same pixel size as micro-CT scan, and third (C) is raw TXM image. These images illustrate differences in damage morphology and partial volume effect that occur between micro-CT and TXM. Staining of bone structures and nanoscale damage is not visible using micro-CT; scale bar = 25 microns.</p