Sentences with phrase «differences in risk between»

Differences in risk between categories were not statistically significant.

ASD are about four times more common in boys than girls, but there were no observed differences in risk between boys and girls in the study.

If you're that worried about absolute death rates, the absolute difference in risk between home birth and hospital birth is about the same as the absolute difference in risk between driving your child with a proper, age - appropriate car seat and driving your child without even a seatbelt.

There is no significant difference in risk between these two groups.

Genetics may explain the difference in risk between individuals, but not a population.

The difference in risk between customer and service provider means that the two parties need to have different termination right in an outsourcing contract.

Not exact matches

Various factors may cause differences between Bellicum's expectations and actual results, including risks and uncertainties associated with market conditions and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions related to the public offering, as well as those discussed in greater detail in Bellicum's filings with the SEC, including without limitation in its Form 10 - K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The difference in risk - taking between men and women is more than just interesting trivia.

As a result, compared to the March 2012 Budget planning assumption, the level of nominal GDP is $ 9 billion lower in 2012 — this consists of a «risk adjustment factor» of $ 7 billion and the difference between the change in the private sector average forecast of $ 22 billion less the March 2012 Budget «risk adjustment factor» of $ 20 billion.

That half a degree is the difference between low - lying island states surviving, or Arctic ice remaining over the North Pole in summer, or increasing the risk of losing the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet or Greenland ice sheet (either one of which implies an eight - metre sea level rise.)

There is risk in any investment but having that information advantage can mean the difference between making a profit or suffering a loss.

For example, day traders using arbitrage strategies will profit from the difference in price between an American Depository Receipt («ADR») and foreign stock until there's virtually no price difference left minus the risk premium.

In the larger financial industry, who gets to keep the difference between a historic 8 % return on equities, an «equity - like return», and a historic 4 % return on «risk free» investments, such as government bonds?

By looking at the difference in yield between a corporate bond and a Treasury of the same maturity, you can get an idea of the extra premium investors require for the extra credit risk inherent in the corporate bond.

These differences between FICO and VantageScore make the credit rating agencies, lenders and servicers, and end investors in residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) nervous about depending upon newer scores to judge default risk.

Kinder Morgan chief executive officer Steven Kean said that «a company can not litigate its way to an in - service pipeline amidst jurisdictional differences between governments» and that Kinder Morgan can't expose shareholders to «extraordinary political risks that are completely outside of our control and that could prevent completion of the project.»

For example, if you're choosing between a 10 - year adjustable - rate mortgage and a 30 - year fixed, and the difference in mortgage rate is 12.5 basis points (0.125 %), you may feel that there's little reason to accept the risk of an adjustable - rate loan.

«The [difference] between active and passive investing is that an active investor tries to beat the market on a risk - adjusted basis, while a passive investor tries to take the market return,» says Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group in Encinitas, California.

(This is sufficient to show that in relation to this fact there is no difference between an immediate contemporary and a successor; for over against a self - contradiction, and the risk involved in giving it assent, an immediate contemporaneity can yield no advantage.)

There's a place for stepping out in faith, and throwing all of yourself into work that matters to you, but there's also a difference between a calculated risk and recklessness.

it doesn't fully address the difference between inorganic arsenic (which poses a health risk) vs. organic arsenic (which is not known to pose a health risk and is actually needed in low levels by the human body as noted here).

Says LeRoy Jolley, trainer of 1980 Kentucky Derby - winning filly Genuine Risk, «The difference between the two sexes as far as horse racing goes is that a filly only has to win one major stakes race in her life [to demonstrate exceptional breeding potential], whereas a colt, to be valuable as a stallion, has to be a top - rated performer almost every race of his life.

Hence the inane claim by MANA executive Jeannette McCulloch, in a recent post on the blog of the Midwives Alliance of North America, that «no one knows» how to tell the difference between low risk and high risk.

Jeff Skeen of Full90 Sports talks about and the role of protective headgear in reducing the risk of concussion and the difference between concussions, which occur as a result of contact between a player's head and a hard object (another player's head, the ground or the goalpost), and the kinds of brain injuries which can occur as a result of repeated heading of a soccer ball.

Over a three - month period there was no statistically significant difference in injury risk between the pre-run stretching and non-stretching groups.

There's a major difference in the risk of constipation between breastfed babies and those on formula.

Stephen Balkam, CEO of FOSI, discusses the difference between «risk» and «real harm,» both online and in the real world.

Flint and colleagues suggested that when midwives get to know the women for whom they provide care, interventions are minimised.22 The Albany midwifery practice, with an unselected population, has a rate for normal vaginal births of 77 %, with 35 % of women having a home birth.23 A review of care for women at low risk of complications has shown that continuity of midwifery care is generally associated with lower intervention rates than standard maternity care.24 Variation in normal birth rates between services (62 % -80 %), however, seems to be greater than outcome differences between «high continuity» and «traditional care» groups at the same unit.25 26 27 Use of epidural analgesia, for example, varies widely between Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, and the North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

For healthy multiparous women with a low risk pregnancy, there are no differences in adverse perinatal outcomes between planned births at home or in a midwifery unit compared with planned births in an obstetric unit

Most studies of homebirth in other countries have found no statistically significant differences in perinatal outcomes between home and hospital births for women at low risk of complications.36, 37,39 However, a recent study in the United States showed poorer neonatal outcomes for births occurring at home or in birth centres.40 A meta - analysis in the same year demonstrated higher perinatal mortality associated with homebirth41 but has been strongly criticised on methodological grounds.5, 42 The Birthplace in England study, 43 the largest prospective cohort study on place of birth for women at low risk of complications, analysed a composite outcome, which included stillbirth and early neonatal death among other serious morbidity.

Among 64 538 low - risk women, of whom more than 16 000 planned a homebirth at the onset of labour, no difference was found in the adjusted odds between obstetric units and other birthplaces, including homebirth.

Rates of obstetrical intervention are high in U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein U.S. hospitals, and we found large absolute differences in the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein the risks of these interventions between planned out - of - hospital births and in - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein - hospital births.38 In contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyseIn contrast, serious adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes are infrequent in all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein all the birth settings we assessed, and the absolute differences in risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein risk that we observed between planned birth locations were correspondingly small; for example, planned out - of - hospital births were associated with an excess of less than 1 fetal death per 1000 deliveries in multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analysein multivariate and propensity - score - adjusted analyses.

In multiple studies, lactation is associated with reduced maternal risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.12, 22 Several studies have found differences in diabetes prevalence among postmenopausal women.22, 23 However, the only study to measure incident disease found that the association between breastfeeding and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus disappeared after 15 years after a woman's last birth.12 Thus, we limited the effect of lactation on type 2 diabetes mellitus accordinglIn multiple studies, lactation is associated with reduced maternal risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus.12, 22 Several studies have found differences in diabetes prevalence among postmenopausal women.22, 23 However, the only study to measure incident disease found that the association between breastfeeding and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus disappeared after 15 years after a woman's last birth.12 Thus, we limited the effect of lactation on type 2 diabetes mellitus accordinglin diabetes prevalence among postmenopausal women.22, 23 However, the only study to measure incident disease found that the association between breastfeeding and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus disappeared after 15 years after a woman's last birth.12 Thus, we limited the effect of lactation on type 2 diabetes mellitus accordingly.

To assess the robustness of the results of our regression analysis, we performed covariate adjustment with derived propensity scores to calculate the absolute risk difference (details are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).14, 15 To calculate the adjusted absolute risk difference, we used predictive margins and G - computation (i.e., regression - model — based outcome prediction in both exposure settings: planned in - hospital and planned out - of - hospital birth).16, 17 Finally, we conducted post hoc analyses to assess associations between planned out - of - hospital birth and outcomes (cesarean delivery and a composite of perinatal morbidity and mortality), which were stratified according to parity, maternal age, maternal education, and risk level.

Absolute inequality measures reflect not only inequalities across socioeconomic subgroups but also public health importance of the outcome in consideration, and they could provide different, even contradictory, patterns of inequalities from relative measures in a given outcome.21, 22 However, measuring absolute inequality is often neglected in health inequalities research.23 Relative risks (RRs) and absolute risk differences (RDs) of discontinuing breastfeeding among mothers with lower education compared with mothers with complete university education (reference category) were separately estimated in the intervention and in the control group and then compared between the two groups.

Restriction of the analyses to low risk women without complicating conditions at the start of care in labour narrowed the cost differences between planned places of birth: total mean costs were # 1511 for an obstetric unit, # 1426 for an alongside midwifery unit, # 1405 for a free standing midwifery unit, and for # 1027 the home (table 2 ⇓).

A 2011 BMJ study of 65,000 English births found that home birth carried a higher risk for the babies of first - time mothers - but for second - time mothers giving birth there was no difference in the risk to babies between home, a midwife - led unit or a doctor - led hospital unit, it said.

The difference in the average treatment effect in overall fetal loss and neonatal death across included trials between women allocated to midwife - led continuity models of care and women allocated to other models has an average risk ratio (RR) of 0.84, with 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.99 (participants = 17561; studies = 13).

No significant differences between groups were observed at six to seven months in the risk of underweight (RR 0.92, 95 % CI [0.54 to 1.58], stunting (RR 1.20, 95 % CI [0.57 to 2.53]-RRB-, or wasting (RR 0.42, 95 % CI [0.12 to 1.50]; 1 study / 370 infants) or at nine to ten months (underweight RR 0.93, 95 % CI [0.64 to 1.36]; stunting RR 1.21, 95 % CI [0.62 to 2.37]; wasting RR 0.82, 95 % CI [0.39 to 1.71]; 1 study / 319 infants).

Research from Australia has found no significant difference between planned home birth and hospital birth in terms of the risk of PPH [1].

Mean age at which infants first sat from lying did not differ between groups, and there was no evidence of a difference in pooled risk of a delay in walking until after 12 months (2 trials / 240 infants).

The difference in the average treatment effect in all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death across included trials between women allocated to midwife - led continuity models of care and women allocated to other models has an average risk ratio (RR) of 0.84, with 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.99 (participants = 17561; studies = 13).

The last link addressed the issue best, I thought: «The increase in risk of severe maternal morbidities in non-white women seems to be independent of differences in age, socioeconomic and smoking status, body mass index, and parity between ethnic groups.»

Differences between cases and controls in accuracy of recall could be responsible for the decreased SIDS risk associated with fan use.

I can see that you're a big fan of relative risk, but what you're not acknowledging is that there are tests of statistical significance that researchers run in order to determine whether any difference between two outcomes is real or not.

Dr. McKenna is best known for his pioneering studies of the differences between the physiology and behavior of solitary and co-sleeping mothers an infants - and the connection these data might have in addressing SIDS risks.

Some dental malocclusions have been found more commonly among pacifier users than nonusers, but the differences generally disappeared after pacifier cessation.284 In its policy statement on oral habits, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry states that nonnutritive sucking behaviors (ie, fingers or pacifiers) are considered normal for infants and young children and that, in general, sucking habits in children to the age of 3 years are unlikely to cause any long - term problems.285 There is an approximate 1.2 - to 2-fold increased risk of otitis media associated with pacifier use, particularly between 2 and 3 years of age.286, 287 The incidence of otitis media is generally lower in the first year of life, especially the first 6 months, when the risk of SIDS is the highest.288, — , 293 However, pacifier use, once established, may persist beyond 6 months, thus increasing the risk of otitis mediIn its policy statement on oral habits, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry states that nonnutritive sucking behaviors (ie, fingers or pacifiers) are considered normal for infants and young children and that, in general, sucking habits in children to the age of 3 years are unlikely to cause any long - term problems.285 There is an approximate 1.2 - to 2-fold increased risk of otitis media associated with pacifier use, particularly between 2 and 3 years of age.286, 287 The incidence of otitis media is generally lower in the first year of life, especially the first 6 months, when the risk of SIDS is the highest.288, — , 293 However, pacifier use, once established, may persist beyond 6 months, thus increasing the risk of otitis mediin general, sucking habits in children to the age of 3 years are unlikely to cause any long - term problems.285 There is an approximate 1.2 - to 2-fold increased risk of otitis media associated with pacifier use, particularly between 2 and 3 years of age.286, 287 The incidence of otitis media is generally lower in the first year of life, especially the first 6 months, when the risk of SIDS is the highest.288, — , 293 However, pacifier use, once established, may persist beyond 6 months, thus increasing the risk of otitis mediin children to the age of 3 years are unlikely to cause any long - term problems.285 There is an approximate 1.2 - to 2-fold increased risk of otitis media associated with pacifier use, particularly between 2 and 3 years of age.286, 287 The incidence of otitis media is generally lower in the first year of life, especially the first 6 months, when the risk of SIDS is the highest.288, — , 293 However, pacifier use, once established, may persist beyond 6 months, thus increasing the risk of otitis mediin the first year of life, especially the first 6 months, when the risk of SIDS is the highest.288, — , 293 However, pacifier use, once established, may persist beyond 6 months, thus increasing the risk of otitis media.

To understand better the difference between the overall risk reduction and the reduction in those with a family history, Stuebe offers this analogy: Suppose the Los Angeles Lakers and a group of 5 - year - olds had a free - throw contest.

In some high - income countries, where maternity care is integrated across birth settings, researchers have concluded that there are no significant differences between birth places in morbidity or mortality for newborns [15, 16, 19] and / or that the absolute risks of mortality are extremely low [13, 14In some high - income countries, where maternity care is integrated across birth settings, researchers have concluded that there are no significant differences between birth places in morbidity or mortality for newborns [15, 16, 19] and / or that the absolute risks of mortality are extremely low [13, 14in morbidity or mortality for newborns [15, 16, 19] and / or that the absolute risks of mortality are extremely low [13, 14].

The difference in the average treatment effect in overall fetal loss and neonatal death across included trials between women allocated to midwife - led continuity models of care and women allocated to other models has an average risk ratio (RR) of 0.84 and a 95 % confidence interval (CI) of 0.71 to 1.00 (12 trials, n = 15,869, RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.71 to 1.00, random - effects).