Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Evol Hum Behav. 2017 Aug 24;38(6):714–728. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.08.001

Table 4.

Top AIC-ranked logistic regression models of the four most common aversions among the free-listed foods. Coefficients are odds ratios (95% CI). Jenu Kurubas are the base level for Population; no nausea or vomiting is the base level for nausea or vomiting. The last row indicates if the top-ranked model for that food aversion supports an a priori prediction.

Variable ESS Grains Meat Nuts/seeds/legumes
Population (Rural farmers) 0.76 (0.219, 2.81) 0.952 (0.365, 2.62) 1.98 (0.58, 9.16) 14.2 (2.67, 264)
Trimester 0.194 (0.0736, 0.445) 0.815 (0.434, 1.53) 1.01 (0.485, 2.17)
Nausea or vomiting 2.51 (0.559, 18.2) 4.67e7 (4.97e-24, NA)
Household size (centered) 3.73 (1.33, 13.7)
Observations 102 102 102 102
Null deviance (df) 88.6 (101) 124 (101) 88.6 (101) 109 (101)
Residual deviance (df) 70.6 (98) 116 (98) 87.5 (100) 83.3 (98)
Chisqr Chisq (3) = 18*** Chisq (3) = 7.53 Chisq (1) = 1.12 Chisq (3) = 25.6***
AIC 78.59 124.1 91.51 91.27
Tjur’s D 0.23 0.079 0.01 0.2
Supports a priori prediction Yes No No No