Table S4. Analysis of a reconstructed genome (das_tool.- binsanity.asm_contigs_metaspades_gt1500-bin_18.fa or Nitrospirae_ANNOTATED_contigs_1000.genes.fna) with metabolic potential for oxygen reduction, sulfate reduction and nitrate reduction to nitrous oxide or ammonium. This organism was enriched and became the dominant microbial member in the bioreactor, representing a new group in the Nitrospirae phylum. Proteins of interest are highlighted in this table. NODE: contig number; length: contig length; cov: contig coverage; last underscore followed by digit: gene number.
Table S4. Fit statistics from the biometric moderation MCoTS models of child emotional and behavioural outcomes moderated by paternal SES indices 181 Table S5. Moderated path estimates, standard errors and 95% confidence intervals of child emotional and behavioural outcomes moderated by paternal SES indices 182 Figure S1. Path diagram of the full Multiple-Children-of-Twins-and-Siblings (MCoTS) structural equation model. 183 Figure S2. Xxxxxxx (2002) bivariate moderation model. 184 Figure S3. Distributions of child emotional and behavioural outcome variables before and after logarithmic transformation 185 Table of Figures Chapter 2:
Table S4. 1: Land Acquisition and Affected Households by Subproject Province Non- significant12 Significant Total Total Affected Permanent Land Aacqusition Temporary Land Acquisition Trees NWFP Affected households (AHHs) AHHs AHHs APs Residential Structures (ha) (ha) Xxxxx Xxxxx 21 0 21 218 0 5.78 0.1 460 Machai 7 0 7 77 0 0 0.2 12 Ranolia 22 2 24 274 2 6 0.15 5 Total NWFP 50 2 52 569 2 11.78 0.45 477 PUNJAB Chianwaii 3 0 3 21 0 0 0.6 3 Pakpattan 4 0 4 28 0 0 0.2 4 Okara 4 0 4 28 0 0 2.4 0 Total PUNJAB 11 0 11 77 0 0 3.2 7 Total Project 61 2 63 646 2 11.78 3.65 484 7. The Resettlement Framework (RF) was formulated to guide the preparation of RPs of subprojects, under future tranches, that may have resettlement impacts. The RF identifies the broad scope of the Investment Program and outlines the policy, procedures and institutional requirements that will be followed in preparing RPs. The EAs of the Investment Program will be the Provincial governments; and the IAs for the first tranche will be Xxxxxx Xxxxx Development Organization (SHYDO) in NWFP, and the Irrigation and Power Department (IPD) in Punjab. For the subsequent tranches the EAs will be the provincial governments where the subprojects will be implemented. IAs are yet to be identified. The Project Management Units (PMUs) will be responsible for formulating RPs for subprojects with resettlement impacts, as outlined in RF. The draft RPs will be submitted to ADB for review and approval prior to contract award, and compensation will be paid to all APs before the commencement of civil works of any subproject.
Table S4. 5.1: The characteristics of the participants at 21 months after treatment
Table S4. Age-adjusted Incidence Rates and Incidence Rate Ratios of High Grade Mixed Adenocarcinoma by Race/Ethnicity for 2004–2009 (Period 1) and 2010–2015 (Period 2) N IR (95% CI) IRR (95% CI) P value Overall 2004-2009 1,469 0.30 (0.28, 0.31) 1.00 2010-2015 NHW 2,141 0.36 (0.35, 0.38) 1.23 (1.15, 1.32) <0.0001 2004-2009 1,054 0.30 (0.28, 0.32) 1.00 2010-2015 NHB 1,423 0.36 (0.34, 0.38) 1.21 (1.11, 1.31) <0.0001 2004-2009 172 0.40 (0.34, 0.46) 1.00 2010-2015 NHO 324 0.58 (0.51, 0.64) 1.45 (1.19, 1.76) 0.0001 2004-2009 123 0.27 (0.22, 0.32) 1.00 2010-2015 Hispanic 177 0.28 (0.24, 0.33) 1.06 (0.83, 1.35) 0.6731 2004-2009 120 0.22 (0.18, 0.26) 1.00 2010-2015 217 0.29 (0.25, 0.33) 1.32 (1.04, 1.68) 0.0209 Rates are per 100,000 and age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. Abbreviations: IR, incidence rate; IRR, incidence rate ratio; CI, confidence interval; NHW, non-Hispanic White; NHB, non-Hispanic Black; NHO, non-Hispanic Other.
Table S4. Cumulative risk (95% Confidence Interval) using segregation analysis, major gene models assuming relative risk as a continuous, piecewise linear function of age. Main Analysis Cumulative risk The BRCA1 c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q); intermediate risk variant (95% Confidence Interval) Sub-Analysis 1 Cumulative risk (95% Confidence Interval) Sub-Analysis 2 Cumulative risk (95% Confidence Interval) Age Breast cancer Ovarian cancer Breast cancer Ovarian cancer Breast cancer Ovarian cancer 25 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.56 (0.01, 0.06) (0.02, 1.57) (0.01, 0.08) (3.94x10-4, 7.50) (0.01, 0.10) (0.003, 3.73) 30 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.10 0.28 0.96 (0.10, 0.45) (0.03, 2.79) (0.08, 0.57) (7.01x10-4, 12.98) (0.08, 0.73) (0.005, 6.56) 35 0.82 0.42 0.86 0.16 1.09 1.44 (0.38, 1.75) (0.04, 4.34) (0.32, 2.21) (1.10x10-3, 19.63) (0.31, 2.81) (0.008, 10.11) 40 2.22 0.64 2.32 0.24 2.95 2.08 (1.04, 4.70) (0.06, 6.49) (0.87, 5.92) (1.66x10-3, 28.11) (0.85, 7.49) (0.01, 14.87) 45 4.89 0.96 5.10 0.36 6.41 2.98 (2.30, 10.19) (0.10, 9.66) (1.94, 12.72) (2.52x10-3, 39.32) (1.89, 15.95) (0.02, 21.63) 50 8.22 1.51 8.72 0.67 10.62 4.13 (4.22, 16.40) (0.30, 13.68) (3.86, 20.34) (0.12, 51.16) (3.69, 24.88 ) (0.13, 29.53) 55 11.99 2.30 13.05 1.29 15.25 5.39 (6.82, 22.50) (0.66, 17.66) (6.73, 28.18) (0.36, 60.48) (6.06, 32.87) (0.34, 36.61) 60 15.02 3.39 16.82 2.37 18.87 6.65 (9.35, 26.46) (1.21, 20.74) (9.53, 33.35) (0.80, 66.01) (8.15, 37.55) (0.66, 41.30) 65 17.46 4.83 20.28 4.10 21.64 7.80 (11.37, 28.80) (1.99, 21.94) (12.18, 36.99) (1.51, 66.40) (9.93, 40.72) (1.14, 41.82) 70 20.01 6.43 23.89 6.02 24.47 9.07 (13.26, 32.01) (2.78, 24.53) (14.51, 42.42) (2.25, 66.73) (11.29, 46.03) (1.58, 42.50)
Table S4. Measurement Summary of 2-Facet RSM (Integrated Data, Single Scorer) Facet N Measure M(SD) Measure Range Infit Range Outfit Range Sep. Strata Rel. Persons 318 0.09 (1.57) -4.90 – 4.16 0.36 – 2.48 0.40 – 8.17 6.91 0.98 Items 30 0.00 (0.99) -2.36 – 1.46 0.70 – 2.03 0.66 – 4.23 17.14 1.00 Note. Rating scale thresholds: 0/1 = -1.06 logits, 1/2 = -0.59 logits, 2/3 = 0.38 logits, 3/4 = 1.27 logits. Table S5. Linear regression EIT item averages on select linguistic features following Xxx et al. (2016) Estimate SE ß p Intercept 3.87 0.40 Syllables -0.07 0.04 -0.35 0.10 Relative Clauses -0.27 0.20 -0.21 0.18 Vocabulary Score -0.09 0.05 -0.34 0.08 F(3,26) = 9.55, p = 0.0002, Multiple R2 = 0.54, Adjusted R2 = 0.47.
Table S4. Regression results for resting state connectome similarity including only unique subjects (N = 42 dyads). Unstandardized B (SE) Standardized β p F df p R2 3.52 3, 38 .024 .22 Maltreatment -.088 (.043) -.288 .043 Parent Age .000 (.002) -.039 .831 Age Difference -.005 (.003) -.341 .065 Note. All results presented are based on bootstrapping with 1000 samples except for the standardized beta coefficient.
Table S4. Relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence interval (CI) for ED visits due to fluid and electrolyte imbalance (FLEL) associated with one order increase in the sequence of heat wave periods per year. Heat waves are defined as periods of ≥ 2 consecutive days with temperature (T) or apparent temperature (AT) exceeding the 98th percentile using daily maximum (MAX), minimum (MIN), or average (AVG). The first day of the heat wave period is excluded. FLEL SEQ Sample size Lag0 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag1 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag2 R.R. (95%C.I.) Lag3 R.R. (95%C.I.) MAXT 1 11 1.00 (0.92, 1.10) 0.97 (0.87, 1.09) 1.06 (0.95, 1.18) 1.06 (0.95, 1.19) MAXT 2 10 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) 0.99 (0.91, 1.08) 1.02 (0.94, 1.12) 0.99 (0.90, 1.08) MAXT ≥3 8 1.07 (0.98, 1.17) 1.04 (0.95, 1.15) 1.04 (0.94, 1.14) 0.98 (0.89, 1.08) MINT 1 17 1.10 (1.04, 1.16) 1.12 (1.05, 1.19) 1.13 (1.06, 1.20) 1.10 (1.04, 1.17) MINT 2 14 1.11 (1.04, 1.18) 1.05 (0.97, 1.13) 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) 0.95 (0.87, 1.03) MINT ≥3 33 1.06 (1.01, 1.12) 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) 0.99 (0.94, 1.04) 0.97 (0.92, 1.02) AVGT 1 12 1.05 (0.97, 1.13) 1.1 (1.00, 1.21) 1.10 (1.00, 1.21) 1.01 (0.91, 1.12) AVGT 2 10 1.05 (0.97, 1.13) 1.01 (0.93, 1.10) 0.99 (0.91, 1.08) 0.99 (0.91, 1.08) AVGT ≥3 13 1.02 (0.94, 1.09) 1.02 (0.94, 1.10) 0.94 (0.87, 1.02) 0.91 (0.84, 0.99) MAXAT 1 12 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) 1.10 (1.01, 1.20) 1.02 (0.93, 1.11) 1.00 (0.91, 1.09) MAXAT 2 10 1.04 (0.96, 1.14) 1.09 (0.98, 1.20) 1.02 (0.92, 1.12) 0.98 (0.89, 1.09) MAXAT ≥3 15 0.99 (0.92, 1.06) 1.02 (0.95, 1.10) 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) MINAT 1 15 1.09 (1.02, 1.16) 1.06 (0.99, 1.14) 1.06 (0.99, 1.14) 1.02 (0.94, 1.10) MINAT 2 10 1.09 (0.99, 1.20) 0.99 (0.88, 1.12) 1.03 (0.92, 1.17) 1.08 (0.96, 1.22) MINAT ≥3 10 1.02 (0.92, 1.13) 1.04 (0.95, 1.15) 0.99 (0.90, 1.09) 0.93 (0.85, 1.03) AVGAT 1 13 1.08 (1.01, 1.16) 1.10 (1.02, 1.19) 1.04 (0.95, 1.12) 1.00 (0.92, 1.08) AVGAT 2 11 1.05 (0.97, 1.13) 1.05 (0.96, 1.14) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07) 0.96 (0.88, 1.05)
Table S4. The layout of OTU number, anammox sequen- ces, accession numbers and the related anammox strain in the tree (0.03 cutoff).
