After additionally correcting in several steps for long-term illness, working hours per week, overtime work, psychological job demands, decision latitude, physical demanding work, work–family conflict and living situation, the LOXO-101 mouse effects remained significant in both age groups. Among women, a significant effect was found in the age group of 46–55 years compared with the age group of 26–35 years. After correcting for long-term illness, working hours per week, overtime work, psychological job demands, decision latitude, physically demanding work, work-family 4SC-202 chemical structure conflict

and living situation, no significant effects remained. Table 3 Age as a risk factor for high need for recovery over time   RRa (95% CI) RRb (95% CI) RRc (95% CI) RRd (95% CI) Men  Age (10 years increase) 1.04 (0.96–1.13) 1.02 (0.94–1.10) 1.03 (0.95–1.11) 1.05 (0.97–1.14)  Age (years)   18–25 1.01 (0.59–1.72) 0.98 (0.58–1.67) 1.12 (0.66–1.92) 1.11 (0.65–1.89)   26–35 (ref) 1 1 1 1   36–45 1.30 (1.07–1.58) 1.29 (1.06–1.56) 1.24 (1.02–1.51) 1.24 (1.03–1.51)   46–55 1.25 HM781-36B (1.03–1.52) 1.20 (0.99–1.46) 1.21 (0.99–1.47) 1.24 (1.02–1.51)   56–65 0.87 (0.62–1.21) 0.84 (0.60–1.17) 0.88 (0.63–1.28) 0.91 (0.65–1.28) Women  Age (10 years increase) 1.12 (0.99–1.26) 1.09 (0.97–1.23) 1.06 (0.94–1.19) 1.05 (0.93–1.18)  Age (years)   18–25 0.86 (0.54–1.36) 0.88 (0.55–1.41) 0.91 (0.57–1.46) 0.93 (0.58–1.49)   26–35 (ref) 1 1 1 1   36–45 1.00 (0.80–1.24) 0.99 (0.80–1.23) 0.96 (0.77–1.19) 0.93 (0.74–1.16)   46–55 1.36 (1.04–1.77) 1.28 (0.98–1.68) 1.20 (0.92–1.57) 1.22

(0.93–1.59)   56–65 0.96 (0.50–1.83) 0.90 (0.47–1.71) 0.87 (0.46–1.67) 0.85 (0.44–1.62) aRR adjusted for educational level and smoking bRR additionally adjusted for long-term illness cRR additionally adjusted for hours per week, working overtime, psychological job demands, decision latitude and physically demanding work dRR additionally adjusted for work-family conflict and living situation Discussion The objective of this study was 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase to investigate the impact of increasing age on the need for recovery over time, while taking relevant confounding factors into account. With regard to the representativeness of our study for the general working population, it should be noted that we excluded shift workers, and therefore the results of this study are only applicable to day workers. The reason for excluding shift workers was that the relationship between age and need for recovery may be distorted by the specific work schedule the employee is involved in, because in general shift workers report higher need for recovery levels compared to day workers (Jansen et al.