S plus version 8

All data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were summarized using measures of central tendency and variability. Categorical variables were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies. Differences between groups were assessed using a generalized linear mixed model for binary data using the logit-link with enrichment system as fixed factor and donor as random factor. For analysis of the cell-and nucleus diameters of the phenotypic characterization with DEPArray Nxt image analysis a linear mixed model was used. Corrections for simultaneous hypothesis testing were performed according to Sidak. Residual analysis by means of normal quantile plots showed that a log-transformation had to be applied to the data. All analyses were performed in S-PLUS version 8 (TIBCO Software), with a two-sided P-value <0.05 considered as statistically significant.

Data processing and analysis were performed using S-PLUS version 8 (TIBCO Software, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), with a two-tailed P value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant. For the analysis of patient characteristics, Fisher’s exact tests and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to investigate differences between fasting and glucose-loaded groups. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to examine correlations between two parameters selected from the liver histology score (lobular inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning, steatosis grade, fibrosis stage), physical variables (age, sex, body mass index), results of blood tests, and expression levels of IRS1, IRS2, β-catenin, and GCK. To investigate relationships between blood glucose levels at 120 min or the Matsuda Index of insulin sensitivity and each parameter, we used the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient for univariate analysis and a linear regression model for multivariate analysis. For this, we explored model selection using the Akaike information criterion. For the analysis of T2DM risk factors, we used univariate and multivariate Cox hazard regression analysis.

After completing the baseline assessment, clients within each state quit line were randomized to receive the PDA or standard educational material (EDU) using S-plus, version 8.04 (TIBCO Software Inc) statistical software to generate a randomization schedule with various block sizes. Participants were not blinded to intervention allocation. Study interviewers were blinded to participant allocation at the 3- and 6-month assessments, but not the 1-week follow-up because questions about the PDA were asked of participants in this group. Participants received the PDA intervention materials via mail in DVD format 1 week before the first follow-up assessment; they were also offered a weblink to the video (2 participants requested a weblink). Participants randomized to EDU were mailed a 2-page brochure about lung cancer screening. When needed, research coordinators assisted participants in finding a location where they could view the PDA such as a public library. Participants in both groups were encouraged to discuss screening with a health care clinician, but they were not given specific guidance on locating a screening facility.