Table 4. Difference between VLBW and the term born young adults: multiple linear regression models.
| Outcome | n | Modela | Difference (95% CI)b | p-Value |
| Lumbar spine aBMD Z score | 280 | 1 | −0.51 (−0.75 to −0.28) | <0.001 |
| 280 | 2 | −0.37 (−0.62 to −0.13) | 0.003 | |
| 280 | 3 | −0.25 (−0.48 to −0.02) | 0.03 | |
| 272 | 4 | −0.26 (−0.51 to −0.01) | 0.04 | |
| Lumbar spine BMAD | 280 | 1 | −0.0043 (−0.0075 to −0.0012) | 0.006 |
| 280 | 2 | −0.0057 (−0.0090 to −0.0024) | <0.001 | |
| 280 | 3 | −0.0040 (−0.0071 to −0.0010) | 0.01 | |
| 272 | 4 | −0.0041 (−0.0074 to −0.0007) | 0.02 | |
| Femoral neck aBMD Z score | 280 | 1 | −0.56 (−0.78 to −0.34) | <0.001 |
| 280 | 2 | −0.48 (−0.71 to −0.26) | <0.001 | |
| 280 | 3 | −0.35 (−0.55 to −0.14) | <0.001 | |
| 272 | 4 | −0.40 (−0.64 to −0.17) | <0.001 | |
| Whole body aBMD Z score | 278 | 1 | −0.33 (−0.56 to −0.11) | 0.003 |
| 278 | 2 | −0.21 (−0.44 to 0.03) | 0.08 | |
| 278 | 3 | −0.12 (−0.34 to 0.10) | 0.30 | |
| 270 | 4 | −0.12 (−0.35 to 0.12) | 0.34 | |
| Whole body BMC, g | 278 | 1 | −224 (−301 to −147) | <0.001 |
| 278 | 2 | −98 (−165 to −30) | 0.005 | |
| 278 | 3 | −60 (−120 to 1) | 0.05 | |
| 270 | 4 | −69 (−138 to −1) | 0.05 | |
| Whole body less head BMC c , g | 278 | 1 | −214 (−283 to −146) | <0.001 |
| 278 | 2 | −97 (−156 to −39) | 0.001 | |
| 278 | 3 | −61 (−112 to −10) | 0.02 | |
| 270 | 4 | −73 (−134 to −13) | 0.02 |
The Z scores were equipment-, sex-, and age-specific. Participant's age was included in models for BMAD and BMC by a piecewise linear function allowing the effect of age to differ before and after age 20 y. aBMD denotes areal bone mineral density.
a
Models: 1, sex; 2, sex and current height; 3, sex, current height, and BMI; 4, sex, current height, and exercise intensity.
b
Negative values indicate lower level in VLBW individuals.
c
Whole body less head BMC contains the whole body with head excluded.