Skip to main content
. 2017 Feb 24;7:43434. doi: 10.1038/srep43434

Table 2. Risk of CRC by vitamin B2 and B6 status.

Vitamin B2a Vitamin B6a
Tertile 1 (<30.8) Tertile 2 (30.8–45.6) Tertile 3 (≥45.6)
Tertile 1 (<9.0)
 Cases/controls (n) 105/148 76/151 46/97
 OR-BNb ref 0.78 0.80
 OR-CLR (95% CI)c ref 0.70 (0.48, 1.02) 0.67 (0.44, 1.04)
Tertile 2 (9.0–15.3)
 Cases/controls (n) 78/138 64/134 73/123
 OR-BNb 0.77 0.69 0.79
 OR-CLR (95% CI)c 0.78 (0.54, 1.14) 0.66 (0.44, 0.99) 0.83 (0.56, 1.21)
Tertile 3 (≥15.3)
 Cases/controls (n) 38/110 50/110 78/175
 OR-BNb 0.53 0.70 0.61
 OR-CLR (95% CI)c 0.48 (0.31, 0.75) 0.63 (0.41, 0.97) 0.62 (0.43, 0.90)
Pinteractiond = 0.004

OR: Odds ratio - CI: Confidence interval - BN: Bayesian Network - CLR: conditional logistic regression – PLP: Pyridoxal 5′ phosphate.

aConcentrations in nmol/l, cut-offs based on the distribution of the controls.

bEstimated using fitted parameters of the estimated BN, additionally adjusted for the matching variables.

cEstimates from a CLR-model adjusted for the matching variables by risk set stratification. Adjusting for other potential confounders had essentially no effect on the estimates.

dCalculated by modeling log-transformed variables as multiplicative interaction terms in a CLR-model.