4.6 Article

Do leukocyte telomere length dynamics depend on baseline telomere length? An analysis that corrects for 'regression to the mean'

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 859-866

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-013-9845-4

关键词

Leukocyte telomere length; Sex; Age; 'Regression to the mean'; Longitudinal studies

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
  2. US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF)
  3. National Institutes of Health [AG16592, AG030678, R01-HD071180]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leukocyte telomere length (LTL) shortens with age. Longitudinal studies have reported accelerated LTL attrition when baseline LTL is longer. However, the dependency of LTL attrition on baseline LTL might stem from a statistical artifact known as regression to the mean (RTM). To our knowledge no published study of LTL dynamics (LTL and its attrition rate) has corrected for this phenomenon. We illustrate the RTM effect using replicate LTL measurements, and show, using simulated data, how the RTM effect increases with a rise in stochastic measurement variation (representing LTL measurement error), resulting in spurious increasingly elevated dependencies of attrition on baseline values. In addition, we re-analyzed longitudinal LTL data collected from four study populations to test the hypothesis that LTL attrition depends on baseline LTL. We observed that the rate of LTL attrition was proportional to baseline LTL, but correction for the RTM effect reduced the slope of the relationship by 57 % when measurement error was low (coefficient of variation similar to 2 %). A modest but statistically significant effect remained however, indicating that high baseline LTL is associated with higher LTL attrition even when correcting for the RTM effect. Baseline LTL explained 1.3 % of the variation in LTL attrition, but this effect, which differed significantly between the study samples, appeared to be primarily attributable to the association in men (3.7 %).

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