1. Phenotypic and Molecular Evidence Suggests That Decrements in Morning and Evening Energy Are Distinct but Related Symptoms 
Bradley E. Aouizerat, PhD, MAS, Anand Dhruva, MD, Steven M. Paul, PhD, Bruce A. Cooper, PhD, Kord M. Kober, PhD, Christine Miaskowski, RN, PhD 
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages e3 (November 2015)
DOI: /j.jpainsymman
Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Terms and Conditions

2. Fig. 1
Observed and estimated a) morning and b) evening energy trajectories for participants in each of the latent classes as well as the mean energy scores for the total sample.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management  , e3DOI: ( /j.jpainsymman )
Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Terms and Conditions

3. Fig. 2
a) Differences between the morning energy latent classes in the percentages of participants who were homozygous or heterozygous for the common allele (CC + CT) or homozygous for the rare allele (TT) for rs in interleukin 2 (IL2). Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value. b) Differences between the latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous for the common allele (TT) or heterozygous or homozygous for the rare allele (TA + AA) for rs in nuclear factor kappa beta 1 (NFKB1). Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management  , e3DOI: ( /j.jpainsymman )
Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Terms and Conditions

4. Fig. 3
a) Differences between the evening energy latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous for the common allele (TT) or heterozygous or homozygous for the rare allele (TC + CC) for rs in interleukin 1 receptor 2 (IL1R2). Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value. b) Differences between the latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous for the common allele (AA) or heterozygous or homozygous for the rare allele (AT + TT) for rs in IL6. Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value. c) Differences between the latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous for the common allele (TT) or heterozygous or homozygous for the rare allele (TC + CC) for rs in IL17A. Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value. d) Differences between the latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous or heterozygous for the common allele (CC + CT) or homozygous for the rare allele (TT) for rs in NFKB2. Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value. e) Differences between the latent classes in the percentages of patients who were homozygous or heterozygous for the common allele (GG + GA) or homozygous for the rare allele (AA) for rs in tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFA). Values are plotted as unadjusted proportions with corresponding P-value.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management  , e3DOI: ( /j.jpainsymman )
Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Terms and Conditions