Table 4.

Associations^a between in utero exposure to PFOA and the offspring BMI and waist circumference at 20 years of age for females (n = 345) and males (n = 320).

PFOA in quartiles [median (range)]b		ΔBMI [mean (95% CI)]			ΔWaist circumference [mean (95% CI)]
		Crude	Adjustedc	Crude	Adjustedc
Females
1	2.3 (0.1–2.8)		Referent		Referent		Referent		Referent
2	3.2 (2.8–3.7)		0.2 (–0.7, 1.2)		0.4 (–0.6, 1.3)		1.0 (–1.7, 3.7)		1.4 (–1.4, 4.2)
3	4.2 (3.7–4.8)		0.8 (–0.2, 1.8)		0.9 (–0.1, 1.9)		0.9 (–1.9, 3.6)		1.2 (–1.7, 4.0)
4	5.8 (4.8–19.8)		1.6 (0.6, 2.5)		1.6 (0.6, 2.6)		4.2 (1.5, 6.9)		4.3 (1.4, 7.3)
p-Value for trendd			0.0007		0.001		0.005		0.006
Malese
1	2.4 (1.2–2.8)		Referent		Referent		Referent		Referent
2	3.3 (2.8–3.7)		0.5 (–0.4, 1.4)		0.6 (–0.3, 1.5)		1.3 (–1.7, 4.3)		1.3 (–1.5, 4.1)
3	4.2 (3.7–4.8)		0.3 (–0.7, 1.2)		0.2 (–0.7, 1.1)		1.0 (–2.0, 4.0)		1.0 (–1.9, 3.8)
4	5.8 (4.8–16.6)		0.4 (–0.5, 1.3)		0.6 (–0.3, 1.5)		0.7 (–2.2, 3.6)		1.3 (–1.6, 4.1)
p-Value for trendd			0.47		0.30		0.72		0.48
aLinear regression with continuous outcome variables (BMI or waist circumference) and PFOA divided into quartiles. bNanograms per milliliter serum. cAdjusted for maternal age, maternal education, maternal preprepregnancy BMI, smoking during pregnancy, parity, infant birth weight, and offspring age at follow-up. dStudent’s t-test with PFOA included in the regression model as an ordinal variable. eWaist circumference was missing for two male offspring (n = 318).