We used Stata/MP 16.1 for Mac (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) for all statistical analyses. Any
P values <0.05 were considered significant. Associations were analyzed by linear regression models with retinal layer thickness as dependent variable, with separate models for RNFL, GCIPL, and ORL. Age and refraction were curvilinear associated with retinal thickness cross-sectionally and were modeled with quadratic terms. Change in thickness by age, mean over the population age span, was obtained by modeling age with linear term only. Interaction with sex was examined cross-sectionally by including cross-products in regression models and data indicated sex differences in the relationship with age and BMI. Sex-specific results were obtained by including the interaction term of sex and the variable of interest and running separate analyses with inversion of the dichotomous definition of the sex variable. We analyzed a cross-sectional prediction model with several known cardiovascular risk factors, presenting results of total explained variance (R
2) and included standardized regression coefficients to facilitate comparison between the different factors. As refraction and axial length may affect the thickness measurements through magnification affecting the size of the scanned area (see
Fig. 1A),
28 we used retinal layer thickness predicted from refraction as dependent variable in the prediction models, to obtain the explained variance of the risk factors only. We used DAGs (
Supplementary Fig. S2) to visualize the model of the assumptions of the causal pathways between different exposures and retinal layer thickness.
19,20,29 The DAGs guided the regression model choice, to include sufficient adjustment to obtain the direct effect and to avoid inducing bias by opening possible non-causal pathways. “Direct effect” was defined as the effect of an exposure on thickness, not mediated through or confounded by other variables. Age and sex were included in all models and adjustment for refraction was included in direct effect models to account for the magnification effect on thickness measurements. For age and smoking, we have reported results from nearest approximation to direct effect models (as axial length was unavailable), according to recommendation from Tennant et al.,
20 although adjustment for refraction may possibly induce bias in estimates (
Supplementary Fig. S3). Direct effect models separate for independent variables of interest (models are specified in the legend of
Supplementary Fig. S2) were analyzed cross-sectionally with layer thickness as dependent variable and longitudinally with change in layer thickness from Tromsø6 to Tromsø7 in the same eye as the dependent variable. To explore the association with BMI, we analyzed the association of different weight-related variables in the subsample which had available BFP data, in cross-sectional age/sex-adjusted and direct effect models. Post hoc we explored a possible U-shaped relationship with blood pressure with details described in the Appendix (
Supplementary material).
30 We performed sensitivity analysis on the prediction model excluding persons with drusen.