Sentences with phrase «differences in risk for»

Thus, individual differences in risk for mother - rated conduct problems across childhood are already partly evident in maternal ratings of temperament during the first year of life and are predicted by early parenting and parenting - by - temperament interactions.

For elbow dysplasia, hip dysplasia, patellar luxation, DCM, early onset cataracts, and lens luxation there were differences in risk for the mixed breeds from that seen in the general population that represented either an increase in risk for neutered females (elbow and hip dysplasia, DCM, and cataracts) or a decrease risk in neutered males (patellar luxation).

The study found no difference in the risk for premature birth, low birth weight or other serious complications among those who didn't receive TDF and those who got TDF along with emtricitabine and lopinavir / ritonavir.

One at Harvard University included an eight - to fourteen - year follow - up study of approximately thirty - eight thousand men and eighty thousand women.12 There was no statistically significant difference in risk for heart attacks and strokes among people who ate eggs less than once a week compared with those who ate more than one egg a day.

Stephanie Lynch, a medical student who co-authored the study as a summer project, says «although thumb - suckers and nail - biters had fewer allergies on skin testing, we found no difference in their risk for developing allergic diseases such as asthma or hay fever».

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.

Differences in firms» preparedness may reflect differences in the level of effort required to achieve compliance, differences in the availability of resources to undertake such efforts, differences in expectations about whether, how and when the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs might be revised, differences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of theDifferences in firms» preparedness may reflect differences in the level of effort required to achieve compliance, differences in the availability of resources to undertake such efforts, differences in expectations about whether, how and when the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs might be revised, differences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of thedifferences in the level of effort required to achieve compliance, differences in the availability of resources to undertake such efforts, differences in expectations about whether, how and when the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs might be revised, differences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of thedifferences in the availability of resources to undertake such efforts, differences in expectations about whether, how and when the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs might be revised, differences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of thedifferences in expectations about whether, how and when the Fiduciary Rule and PTEs might be revised, differences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of thedifferences in perceptions of and appetite for compliance and / or market risk, or some combination of these factors.

These smaller companies are riskier investments, but Banz found that even after adjusting for the difference in risk, small stocks outperformed larger stocks.

International investments involve additional risks, which include differences in financial standards, currency fluctuations, geopolitical risk, foreign taxes, and regulations, and the potential for illiquid markets.

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.

The primary difference being that Wage Laborers PUT UP THEIR OWN SELVES (e.g., their «labor») as the thing being risked, while so - called «capitalists» have nothing of their own at risk if they play with OPM (other people's money) AND ALMOST NEVER EVER PAY FOR THEIR FAILURES, in any case.

After accounting for differences in risk, demographic and trading characteristics, self - directed investors outperform advised investors by a small margin.

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.

Investors may be exposed to substantial risks and significant financial losses in trading cryptocurrency futures contracts and other cryptocurrency - related investment products (eg options, swaps and contracts for differences), especially on unregulated exchanges.

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.

Of course, doing that work is incredibly hard, but the difference is the occurrence of risk — in traditional startups, it occurs at the jump point — for service based folks, the «risk» is simply having the belief that the work you'll put in to create the equity while employed will pay off.

It's more accurate to say that each week we have a small, statistically insignificant and wholly unreliable forecast for the coming week's market direction, but that when grouped over a large number of instances, the differences in the average return / risk profile of different Market Climates are highly statistically significant.

Investment Strategy: Roth IRAs: How to Optimize Yours From Dollars to Millions: How to Invest in Stocks 6 Smart Investment Strategies for Superior Returns Contrarian Investing: How to Stay a Step Ahead Discounted Cash Flow Analysis: A Comprehensive Overview International Investing: Be Aware of This Common Pitfall Covered Calls: How to Get a Ton of Investment Income Selling Put Options: How to Get Paid for Being Patient Index Funds: Yes, There Are Some Downsides Thrift Savings Plan (TSP): Fund Overview Risk vs Volatility: How to Profit from the Difference The Shiller PE (CAPE) Ratio: Current Market Valuations How to Invest Money Intelligently Equal Weighted Index Funds: Pros and Cons How to Generate Investment Income from Precious Metals 5 Rock - Solid Blue Chip Dividend Stocks Share Buybacks: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

(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.

The law is the law, and Christianity didn't make that much of a difference in their life anyway, so why risk imprisonment for something that can just as easily be had through the Kiwanis Club or a Bowling League?

In its notice of decision dated March 16, 2018, Health Canada declared that «changes made in this rice variety did not pose a greater risk to human health than rice varieties currently available on the Canadian market», further noting that «GR2E would have no impact on allergies, and that there were no differences in the nutritional value of GR2E compared to other traditional rice varieties available for consumption except for increased levels of provitamin In its notice of decision dated March 16, 2018, Health Canada declared that «changes made in this rice variety did not pose a greater risk to human health than rice varieties currently available on the Canadian market», further noting that «GR2E would have no impact on allergies, and that there were no differences in the nutritional value of GR2E compared to other traditional rice varieties available for consumption except for increased levels of provitamin in this rice variety did not pose a greater risk to human health than rice varieties currently available on the Canadian market», further noting that «GR2E would have no impact on allergies, and that there were no differences in the nutritional value of GR2E compared to other traditional rice varieties available for consumption except for increased levels of provitamin in the nutritional value of GR2E compared to other traditional rice varieties available for consumption except for increased levels of provitamin A.

In a game where one play can make the difference, this risk is too much for some too take.

Differences in mattresses, bedding, and other cultural practices may account for the lower risk in these countries.

So adding cereal to your baby's bottle likely won't make a difference in her sleep, but it will put her at risk for a variety of complications.

An important conclusion of this study was that fathers make significant differences for the better in the lives of their at - risk children.

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

The strengths of the study include the ability to compare outcomes by the woman's planned place of birth at the start of care in labour, the high participation of midwifery units and trusts in England, the large sample size and statistical power to detect clinically important differences in adverse perinatal outcomes, the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias due to non-consent, the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk (according to current clinical guidelines) and to further increase the comparability of the groups by conducting an additional analysis restricted to women with no complicating conditions identified at the start of care in labour, and the ability to control for several important potential confounders.

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.

The risk is less and perhaps enough that there isn't a clear difference in mortality but the greatly increased risk of apgar of 0 at 5 minutes shows that there is an increased risk for babies born to women who have had a previous (presumably normal) birth.

Of course this does not account for anywhere near the entire difference in death rate, but I suspect that the rates would be a lot closer if all cases that clearly should be risked out actually were risked out.

One study finds an association with disease x, but not y or z, another finds one with y but not x. None of these studies are able to fully control for the critically important confounding variable of maternal health, and none of the decent quality ones have demonstrated a large difference in risk.

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.

For the baby, instrumental delivery can increase the short - term risks of bruising, facial injury, displacement of the skull bones, and cephalohematoma (blood clot under the scalp).24 The risk of intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain) was increased in one study by more than four times for babies born by forceps compared to spontaneous birth, 25 although two studies showed no detectable developmental differences for forceps - born children at five years old.26, 27 Another study showed that when women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the force used by the clinician to deliver the baby was almost twice the force used when an epidural was not in placeFor the baby, instrumental delivery can increase the short - term risks of bruising, facial injury, displacement of the skull bones, and cephalohematoma (blood clot under the scalp).24 The risk of intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding inside the brain) was increased in one study by more than four times for babies born by forceps compared to spontaneous birth, 25 although two studies showed no detectable developmental differences for forceps - born children at five years old.26, 27 Another study showed that when women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the force used by the clinician to deliver the baby was almost twice the force used when an epidural was not in placefor babies born by forceps compared to spontaneous birth, 25 although two studies showed no detectable developmental differences for forceps - born children at five years old.26, 27 Another study showed that when women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the force used by the clinician to deliver the baby was almost twice the force used when an epidural was not in placefor forceps - born children at five years old.26, 27 Another study showed that when women with an epidural had a forceps delivery, the force used by the clinician to deliver the baby was almost twice the force used when an epidural was not in place.28

The performance of different propensity - score methods for estimating differences in proportions (risk differences or absolute risk reductions) in observational studies.

Planned out - of - hospital birth was associated with a higher rate of perinatal death than was planned in - hospital birth (3.9 vs. 1.8 deaths per 1000 deliveries, P = 0.003; odds ratio after adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical conditions, 2.43; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 4.30; adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1000 births; 95 % CI, 0.51 to 2.54).

However, graded inequalities by maternal education emerged in the intervention group -LCB- relative risk [RR] = 1.12 [95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.20] for partial university and RR = 1.20 [95 % CI: 1.11, 1.31] for secondary education or less vs complete university; risk difference [RD] = 0.06 [95 % CI: 0.03, 0.09] and 0.10 [95 % CI: 0.06, 0.14], respectively -RCB-.

The corresponding risk differences were larger in the intervention group: 0.11 (95 % CI: 0.08, 0.15) for mothers with partial university and 0.10 (95 % CI: 0.06, 0.14) for mothers with secondary education or less.

In the control group, absolute risk differences of weaning before 12 months (vs mothers with complete university education) were 0.02 (95 % CI: 0.00, 0.04) for mothers with partial university and 0.04 (95 % CI: 0.02, 0.06) for those with secondary education or less.

Other strengths of the underpinning cohort study include high participation by midwifery units and trusts in England; the minimisation of selection bias through achievement of a high response rate and absence of self selection bias because of non-consent; and the ability to compare groups that were similar in terms of identified clinical risk.12 The economic evaluation was conducted according to nationally agreed design and reporting guidelines.15 26 Collection of primary unit cost data was thorough and accounted for regional differences in care patterns.

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 ⇓).

These differences may explain the lower rate of SIDS in this population and this study identifies these issues as clear targets for SIDS risk reduction among White British families.

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 study includes: an analysis of the state needs assessments that were provided in the state MIECHV applications and an effectiveness study that includes an impact analysis to measure what difference home visiting programs make for the at - risk families they serve in areas such as prenatal, maternal, and newborn health; child development; parenting; domestic violence; and referrals and service coordination.

Planned out - of - hospital birth was associated with a higher rate of perinatal death than was planned in - hospital birth (3.9 versus 1.8 deaths per 1,000 deliveries, p = 0.003; OR after adjustment for maternal characteristics and medical conditions, 2.43; 95 % CI: 1.37 to 4.30; adjusted risk difference, 1.52 deaths per 1,000 births; 95 % CI: 0.51 to 2.54).

Larger randomized trials of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months are needed to confirm the findings reported here, and to exclude differences in the risk of malnutrition in developing countries.

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

The observed differences due to delivery and feeding modes highlight their importance in shaping the early intestinal microbiome and point to possible explanations for some of the risks and benefits associated with infant delivery and feeding practices.

Despite the care taken in this study to match the 3 groups, there may be differences regarding the women who chose home birth that placed them at either lower or higher risk for adverse outcomes that we are unable to measure.