Table 2.
Descriptive statistics as a function of PROP taster status.
| Categorical variablea | Nontasters (n = 23) | Taster (n = 56) | All children (n = 79) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | % (n) | % (n) | % (n) |
| % Male | 34.8 (8) | 41.1 (23) | 39.2 (31) |
| % Female | 65.2 (15) | 58.9 (33) | 60.8 (48) |
| Ethnicity | |||
| % African-American | 47.8 (11) | 39.3 (22) | 41.8 (33) |
| % Caucasian | 8.8 (2) | 14.3 (8) | 12.7 (10) |
| % Hispanic/Latino | 21.7 (5) | 35.7 (20) | 31.6 (25) |
| % Asian | 0.0 (0) | 3.6 (2) | 2.5 (2) |
| % “Other” | 21.7 (5) | 7.1 (4) | 11.4 (9) |
| Family income | |||
| % ≤$20,000 per year | 30.4 (7) | 41.1 (23) | 38.0 (30) |
| % >$20,000 per year | 69.6 (16) | 58.9 (33) | 62.0 (49) |
| Continuous variable | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 5.22 ± 0.74 | 5.00 ± 0.78 | 5.06 ± 0.77 |
| BMI z-score | 1.04 ± 1.16 | 1.04 ± 0.91 | 1.04 ± 0.98 |
a
There were no differences in the descriptive characteristics as a function of PROP phenotype.