LAUSR

For the interaction analyses, we reported the di ff erences in conditional e ff ects (compared to the reference category) instead of the conditional e ff ects, without clearly stating this and discussing results as conditional e ff ects. We calculated the conditional e ff ects; the association of an exposure (e.g., NDVI 300m) with an outcome (e.g., odds of diabetes) conditioned on the level of another exposure (e.g., OP DTT ). P-values for interaction did not change. However, two paragraphs of text and three tables were a ff ected and need to be corrected.Thetext below should replace the “ Potential for interaction ” section in the Results. We hypothesized that the association with to pollution is strongest (increased odds) in the road tra ffi c noise quintile and vice versa. Further, we hypothesized the association with air pollution road tra ffi c noise is strongest (increased odds) in the lowest surrounding green quintile and the association with surrounding green is strongest (decreased odds) in the lowest air pollution or road tra ffi c noise quintile. The conditional associations showed some indications for multiplicative interactions in the hypothesized directions between combinations of exposure variables and the odds of diabetes In the lowest OP DTT quintiles, an IQR increase in NDVI 300m was associated with lower odds of diabetes, whereas in the highest OP DTT quintiles, no signi fi cant association of NDVI 300m observed. The associations of OP DTT with the