4.6 Article

When is baseline adjustment useful in analyses of change? An example with education and cognitive change

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 267-278

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi187

关键词

bias (epidemiology); cognition; educational status; epidemiologic methods; longitudinal studies; models; statistical; neuropsychological tests; regression analysis

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R37 AI032475] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG023399, AG000158] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In research on the determinants of change in health status, a crucial analytic decision is whether to adjust for baseline health status. In this paper, the authors examine the consequences of baseline adjustment, using for illustration the question of the effect of educational attainment on change in cognitive function in old age. With data from the US-based Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old survey (n = 5,726; born before 1924), they show that adjustment for baseline cognitive test score substantially inflates regression coefficient estimates for the effect of schooling on change in cognitive test scores compared with models without baseline adjustment. To explain this finding, they consider various plausible assumptions about relations among variables. Each set of assumptions is represented by a causal diagram. The authors apply simple rules for assessing causal diagrams to demonstrate that, in many plausible situations, baseline adjustment induces a spurious statistical association between education and change in cognitive score. More generally, when exposures are associated with baseline health status, this bias can arise if change in health status preceded baseline assessment or if the dependent variable measurement is unreliable or unstable. In some cases, change-score analyses without baseline adjustment provide unbiased causal effect estimates when baseline-adjusted estimates are biased.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据