4.6 Article

Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683

Keywords

latent class models; growth curves; growth mixture models; lifetime obesity; trajectories

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK National Awareness and Early Detection Initiative
  2. ESRC [ES/F029721/1, ES/J010014/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Latent class trajectory modelling (LCTM) is a relatively new methodology in epidemiology to describe life-course exposures, which simplifies heterogeneous populations into homogeneous patterns or classes. However, for a given dataset, it is possible to derive scores of different models based on number of classes, model structure and trajectory property. Here, we rationalise a systematic framework to derive a core' favoured model. Methods We developed an eight-step framework: step 1: a scoping model; step 2: refining the number of classes; step 3: refining model structure (from fixed-effects through to a flexible random-effect specification); step 4: model adequacy assessment; step 5: graphical presentations; step 6: use of additional discrimination tools (degree of separation'; Elsensohn's envelope of residual plots); step 7: clinical characterisation and plausibility; and step 8: sensitivity analysis. We illustrated these steps using data from the NIH-AARP cohort of repeated determinations of body mass index (BMI) at baseline (mean age: 62.5 years), and BMI derived by weight recall at ages 18, 35 and 50 years. Results From 288993 participants, we derived a five-class model for each gender (men: 177 455; women: 111 538). From seven model structures, the favoured model was a proportional random quadratic structure (model F). Favourable properties were also noted for the unrestricted random quadratic structure (model G). However, class proportions varied considerably by model structureconcordance between models F and G were moderate (Cohen : men, 0.57; women, 0.65) but poor with other models. Model adequacy assessments, evaluations using discrimination tools, clinical plausibility and sensitivity analyses supported our model selection. Conclusion We propose a framework to construct and select a core' LCTM, which will facilitate generalisability of results in future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available