Table 3.
Predictor | Odds Ratio | Standard Error | 95% CI | Z | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IFNGR1 Genotype | 1.87 | 0.512 | 1.097, 3.201 | 2.30 | 0.022 |
Age | 0.83 | 0.050 | 0.740, 0.938 | −3.02 | 0.003 |
KPS score | 0.71 | 0.102 | 0.539, 0.943 | −2.37 | 0.018 |
Overall model fit: χ2 = 27.60, p = 0.0011, R2 = 0.0772 | |||||
IL6 Genotype | 3.06 | 1.511 | 1.165, 8.054 | 2.27 | 0.023 |
Age | 0.83 | 0.050 | 0.734, 0.932 | −3.11 | 0.002 |
KPS score | 0.73 | 0.103 | 0.553, 0.963 | −2.23 | 0.026 |
Overall model fit: χ2 = 27.84, p = 0.0010, R2 = 0.0779 | |||||
TNFA Genotype | 0.13 | 0.105 | 0.026, 0.635 | −2.52 | 0.012 |
Age | 0.84 | 0.051 | 0.748, 0.948 | −2.84 | 0.005 |
KPS score | 0.69 | 0.101 | 0.522, 0.923 | −2.51 | 0.012 |
Overall model fit: χ2 = 31.11, p = 0.0003, R2 = 0.0870 |
Multiple logistic regression analysis of candidate gene associations with resilient versus subsyndromal classes. For each model, the first three principal components identified from the analysis of ancestry informative markers as well as self-report race/ethnicity were retained in all models to adjust for potential confounding due to race or ethnicity (data not shown). Predictors evaluated in each model included genotype (IFNGR1 rs9376268: GG versus GA+AA; IL6 rs2069840: CC+CG versus GG; TNFA rs1799964: TT+TC versus CC), age (in 5 year increments), and functional status at baseline (estimated by the KPS score, in 10 point increments).
Abbreviations; CI = confidence interval; KPS = Karnofsky Performance Status