| βc | Standardized β | SE for βd | P-valuee |
---|
Unadjusted analysis |
HFLVD Pattern Scoref |
All subjects | −135.6 | −0.13 | 32.3 | < 0.001 |
Boys | −81.4 | −0.08 | 47.8 | 0.099 |
Girls | −193.0 | −0.19 | 36.7 | < 0.001 |
PD Pattern Scoref |
All subjects | 57.12 | 0.06 | 30.8 | 0.073 |
Boys | 36.13 | 0.04 | 31.8 | 0.265 |
Girls | 79.75 | 0.08 | 36.1 | 0.035 |
Adjusted analysis |
HFLVD Pattern Scoref |
All subjectsg | − 39.1 | −0.04 | 26.6 | 0.153 |
Boysh | 17.7 | 0.02 | 36.3 | 0.631 |
Girlsh | − 88.5 | −0.09 | 34.6 | 0.016 |
PD Pattern Scoref |
All subjectsg | 59.1 | 0.06 | 23.5 | 0.017 |
Boysh | 35.7 | 0.03 | 24.1 | 0.149 |
Girlsh | 82.1 | 0.08 | 31.8 | 0.015 |
- an = 4404; weighted n = 60,274,698. NHANES 2003–2004 and 2005–2006 were combined into one master database, NHANES 2001–2006
- bRegression analysis using factor scores as continuous variable and dependent variable, serum 25(OH)D concentrations
- cMultivariate regression coefficient
- dStandard error for multivariate regression coefficient
- eSignificance between dietary patterns and serum 25(OH)D in the regression model
- fHigh-Fat-Low-Vegetable Dietary pattern or Prudent Dietary pattern
- gAnalysis was adjusted for sex, race-ethnicity, age, season of examination, body mass index, and daily screen viewing. Poverty income ratio, supplement use, and energy intake were not found significant in this model, therefore those variables were dropped from the analysis
- hAnalysis was adjusted for race-ethnicity, age, season of examination, body mass index, and daily sun screen viewing. Poverty income ratio, supplement use, and energy intake were not found significant in this model, therefore those variables were dropped from the analysis