Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for cardiovascular events.

<p>Abbreviations: HR- hazard ratio. CI confidence interval.</p><p>^a Results from the observational design analyses are compared to the randomized design analysis, and are considered to agree when the difference between hazard ratios is ≤0.15.</p><p>^b adjusted for the variables in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975#pone.0139975.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>.</p><p>^c adjusted for a propensity variable derived from a stepwise logistic regression model that selected 52 of 478 baseline variables.</p><p>^d users of personal calcium and vitamin D supplements were matched to non-users based on the propensity variable</p><p>^e multivariable-adjusted results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI OS) involving 46,892 women with average duration of follow-up 7.2y.</p><p>Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for cardiovascular events.</p

Variables included in multivariate analyses.

<p>Categorical variables: number of falls = 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 falls in past 12 months; hormone therapy use = current personal use or randomization to active treatment in WHI hormone therapy trial, or non-use; smoking = never, past, or current smoker; alcohol intake = non or past drinker, <1 drink/week, 1 to <7 drinks/week, ≥7 drinks/week; race- white, other; education level- beyond high school, other; family income- ≥$35,000/year, <$35,000/year; region USA- northeast, south, midwest, west.</p><p>Variables included in multivariate analyses.</p

the effect of different methods of adjustment on results of observational analyses in comparison to the randomized design result.

<p>The dotted line indicates the concordance boundary (hazard ratio for randomized design ± 0.15).</p

Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for fracture.

<p>^a Results from the observational design analyses are compared to the randomized design analysis, and are considered to agree when the difference between hazard ratios is ≤0.15.</p><p>^b adjusted for the variables in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975#pone.0139975.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>.</p><p>^c adjusted for a propensity variable derived from a stepwise logistic regression model that selected 52 of 478 baseline variables</p><p>^d users of personal calcium and vitamin D supplements were matched to non-users based on the propensity variable</p><p>^e multivariable-adjusted results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI OS) involving 46,892 women with average duration of follow-up 7.2y.</p><p>Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for fracture.</p

Characteristics at randomization in the entire cohort, and in subgroups defined by treatment allocation and by use of personal calcium or vitamin D.

<p>Data are mean (SD) or %. HRT- hormone status. CaD- randomized to calcium plus vitamin D</p><p>^a Women not using personal calcium or vitamin D supplements at randomization</p><p>^b Women from the placebo group who were either using both personal calcium and vitamin D or were not using either of these supplements at randomization.</p><p>^c all data are at randomization except for medical history and smoking status which are at entry to Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials programme. 91% of participants in the calcium plus vitamin D trial entered the trial at their first annual visit in the clinical trials programme and the remainder at their second annual visit.</p><p>Characteristics at randomization in the entire cohort, and in subgroups defined by treatment allocation and by use of personal calcium or vitamin D.</p

Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for cancer.

<p>^a Results from the observational design analyses are compared to the randomized design analysis, and are considered to agree when the difference between hazard ratios is ≤0.15.</p><p>^b adjusted for the variables in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975#pone.0139975.t005" target="_blank">Table 5</a>.</p><p>^c adjusted for a propensity variable derived from a stepwise logistic regression model that selected 52 of 478 baseline variables.</p><p>^d users of personal calcium and vitamin D supplements were matched to non-users based on the propensity variable</p><p>^e multivariable-adjusted results from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI OS) involving 46,892 women with average duration of follow-up 7.2y.</p><p>Comparison of results from the randomized and observational designs for cancer.</p

SNP rs2707466 regional association plot of the discovery genome-wide meta-analysis of cortical thickness.

<p>Circles show GWA meta-analysis p-values, with different colors indicating varying linkage disequilibrium with rs2707466 (diamond).</p

Scatter plots of the observed association of 7q31 locus with forearm BMD.

<p>The P values of SNPs (shown as −log10 values in y-axis, from the genome-wide single-marker association analysis using the linear regression model) are plotted against their map position (b36) (x-axis). The color of each SNP spot reflects its r2 with rs2908004. Missense SNPs are plotted as triangles, and other SNPs are plotted as circles.</p

Association results of forearm BMD meta-analysis and fracture for selected SNPs.

<p>EA: effect allele; NEA: non-effect allele; EAF: effect allele frequency; RA: risk allele.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002745#pgen.1002745.s014" target="_blank">Table S4</a> for a list of all genome-wide significant SNPs.</p

The genome-wide meta-analysis with cortical thickness according to sex.

<p>The genome-wide meta-analysis with cortical thickness according to sex.</p