7 research outputs found

    Associations between health insurance status, neighborhood deprivation, and treatment delays in women with breast cancer living in Georgia

    No full text
    Abstract Background Little is known regarding the association between insurance status and treatment delays in women with breast cancer and whether this association varies by neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation status. Methods In this cohort study, we used medical record data of women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2022 at two Georgia‐based healthcare systems. Treatment delay was defined as >90 days to surgery or >120 days to systemic treatment. Insurance coverage was categorized as private, Medicaid, Medicare, other public, or uninsured. Area deprivation index (ADI) was used as a proxy for neighborhood‐level socioeconomic status. Associations between delayed treatment and insurance status were analyzed using logistic regression, with an interaction term assessing effect modification by ADI. Results Of the 14,195 women with breast cancer, 54% were non‐Hispanic Black and 52% were privately insured. Compared with privately insured patients, those who were uninsured, Medicaid enrollees, and Medicare enrollees had 79%, 75%, and 27% higher odds of delayed treatment, respectively (odds ratio [OR]: 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32–2.43; OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.43–2.13; OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.06–1.51). Among patients living in low–deprivation areas, those who were uninsured, Medicaid enrollees, and Medicare enrollees had 100%, 84%, and 26% higher odds of delayed treatment than privately insured patients (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.44–2.78; OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.48–2.30; OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.05–1.53). No differences in the odds of delayed treatment by insurance status were observed in patients living in high‐deprivation areas. Discussion/Conclusion Insurance status was associated with treatment delays for women living in low‐deprivation neighborhoods. However, for women living in neighborhoods with high deprivation, treatment delays were observed regardless of insurance status

    Metataxonomic Analysis of Individuals at BMI Extremes and Monozygotic Twins Discordant for BMI

    No full text
    Objective: The human gut microbiota has been demonstrated to be associated with a number of host phenotypes, including obesity and a number of obesity-Associated phenotypes. This study is aimed at further understanding and describing the relationship between the gut microbiota and obesity-Associated measurements obtained from human participants. Subjects/Methods: Here, we utilize genetically informative study designs, including a four-corners design (extremes of genetic risk for BMI and of observed BMI; N = 50) and the BMI monozygotic (MZ) discordant twin pair design (N = 30), in order to help delineate the role of host genetics and the gut microbiota in the development of obesity. Results: Our results highlight a negative association between BMI and alpha diversity of the gut microbiota. The low genetic risk/high BMI group of individuals had a lower gut microbiota alpha diversity when compared to the other three groups. Although the difference in alpha diversity between the lean and heavy groups of the BMI-discordant MZ twin design did not achieve significance, this difference was observed to be in the expected direction, with the heavier participants having a lower average alpha diversity. We have also identified nine OTUs observed to be associated with either a leaner or heavier phenotype, with enrichment for OTUs classified to the Ruminococcaceae and Oxalobacteraceae taxonomic families. Conclusion: Our study presents evidence of a relationship between BMI and alpha diversity of the gut microbiota. In addition to these findings, a number of OTUs were found to be significantly associated with host BMI. These findings may highlight separate subtypes of obesity, one driven by genetic factors, the other more heavily influenced by environmental factors

    Harmonizing behavioral outcomes across studies, raters, and countries:application to the genetic analysis of aggression in the ACTION Consortium

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Aggression in children has genetic and environmental causes. Studies of aggression can pool existing datasets to include more complex models of social effects. Such analyses require large datasets with harmonized outcome measures. Here, we made use of a reference panel for phenotype data to harmonize multiple aggression measures in school-aged children to jointly analyze data from five large twin cohorts. METHODS: Individual level aggression data on 86,559 children (42,468 twin pairs) were available in five European twin cohorts measured by different instruments. A phenotypic reference panel was collected which enabled a model-based phenotype harmonization approach. A bi-factor integration model in the integrative data analysis framework was developed to model aggression across studies while adjusting for rater, age, and sex. Finally, harmonized aggression scores were analyzed to estimate contributions of genes, environment, and social interaction to aggression. The large sample size allowed adequate power to test for sibling interaction effects, with unique dynamics permitted for opposite-sex twins. RESULTS: The best-fitting model found a high level of overall heritability of aggression (~60%). Different heritability rates of aggression across sex were marginally significant, with heritability estimates in boys of ~64% and ~58% in girls. Sibling interaction effects were only significant in the opposite-sex twin pairs: the interaction effect of males on their female co-twin differed from the effect of females on their male co-twin. An aggressive female had a positive effect on male co-twin aggression, whereas more aggression in males had a negative influence on a female co-twin. CONCLUSIONS: Opposite-sex twins displayed unique social dynamics of aggressive behaviors in a joint analysis of a large, multinational dataset. The integrative data analysis framework, applied in combination with a reference panel, has the potential to elucidate broad, generalizable results in the investigation of common psychological traits in children

    Recommendations for Adjudicating Among Alternative Structural Models of Psychopathology

    No full text
    Historically, researchers have proposed higher-order factors to explicate the structure of psychopathology, including Externalizing, Internalizing, Fear, Distress, Thought Disorder, and a general factor. Despite extensive research in this domain, the underlying structure of psychopathology remains unresolved. Herein, we examine several issues in adjudicating among structural models of psychopathology. Using simulations and analyses of the extant literature, we contrast the model-based reliability of alternative structural models of psychopathology and highlight shortcomings of conventional model fit indices for such adjudication. We propose alternative criteria for evaluating and contrasting competing structural models, including various model characteristics (e.g., the magnitude and consistency of factor loadings and their precision), the consistency and sensitivity of factors to their constituent indicators, and the variance explained in and patterns of associations with relevant variables. Using these criteria as adjuncts to conventional fit indices should become standard practice and will greatly facilitate adjudication among alternative structural models of psychopathology
    corecore