Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the study population according to the Chinese famine exposure

From: Fetal and infant exposure to severe Chinese famine increases the risk of adult dyslipidemia: Results from the China health and retirement longitudinal study

Variables

Non-exposed cohort

10/1/1962–9/30/1964

(N = 822)

Fetal-exposed cohort

10/1/1959–9/30/1961

(N = 797)

Infant-exposed cohort

1/1/1958–12/30/1958 (N = 536)

Preschool-exposed cohort

1/1/1956–12/30/1957 (N = 597)

Gender n (%)

 Male

383 (46.5)

381 (47.9)

277 (51.7)

310 (52.0)

 Female

439 (53.5)

415 (52.1)

259 (48.3)

286 (48.0)

Area n (%)

 Severely

514 (62.5)

495 (62.1)

339 (63.2)

377 (63.1)

 Less severely

308 (37.5)

302 (37.9)

197 (36.8)

220 (36.9)

Smoking n (%)**

 Never smoking

528 (64.6)

487 (62.0)

310 (58.2)

320 (53.7)

 Former smoking

79 (9.7)

72 (9.2)

59 (11.1)

77 (12.9)

 Current smoking

210 (25.7)

227 (28.9)

164 (30.8)

199 (33.4)

Drinking n(%)

 Never drinking

578 (70.9)

548 (69.7)

377 (70.9)

397 (66.6)

 Former drinking

8 (1.0)

8 (1.0)

10 (1.9)

14 (2.3)

 Current drinking

229 (28.1)

230 (29.3)

145 (27.3)

185 (31.0)

BMI mean(SD) kg/m2**

24.40 (3.90)

24.29 (4.15)

23.73 (3.81)†

23.48 (3.58)‡

Age mean(SD) year**

47.37 (0.48)

50.91 (0.67)‡

53.17 (0.37)‡

55.14 (0.35)‡

TC mean(SD) mmol/L**

4.77 (0.91)

4.98 (0.95)‡

4.99 (0.94)‡

5.01 (0.99)‡

TG mean(SD) mmol/L*

1.30 (1.79)

1.39 (1.83)

1.28 (1.75)

1.25 (1.71)

HDL mean(SD)mmol/L

1.23 (1.31)

1.20 (1.37)

1.24 (1.39)

1.27 (1.34)

LDL mean(SD)mmol/L**,#

2.79 (0.82)

2.95 (0.93)†, $

2.99 (0.86)‡, $

3.02 (0.86)‡, $

  1. TC total cholesterol, TG triglyceride, HDL high density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL low density lipoprotein cholesterol, BMI body mass index, SD standard deviation
  2. *Mean values or distribution were significantly different among the four birth cohorts (ANOVA or χ2-test; P < 0.01)
  3. **Mean values or distribution were significantly different among the four birth cohorts (ANOVA or χ2 test; P < 0.001)
  4. †Mean values were significantly different between exposed cohort and non-exposed cohort (Dunnett’s, t-test, P < 0.05)
  5. ‡Mean values were significantly different between exposed cohorts and non-exposed cohort (Dunnett’s, t-test, P < 0.01)
  6. #Mean values were significantly different as assessed by ANCOVA with lipid profile as a dependent variable and age as a covariate among the four birth cohorts (P < 0.05)
  7. $Mean values were significantly different by ANCOVA with lipid profiles as a dependent variable and age as a covariate between exposed cohorts and non-exposed cohort (P < 0.05)