ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Invited Commentary: A-P-C... It's Easy as 1-2-3!
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collaboratively building teaching resources for EDI in epidemiology and biostatistics.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Global temporal trends and projections of gastroesophageal reflux disease prevalence: Age-period-cohort analysis 2021.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Ovarian Cancer Incidence in the Multi-Ethnic Asian City-State of Singapore 1968-2012.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Trends in Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity and Mortality in American Indians Over 25 Years: The Strong Heart Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
- Rising trends in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma incidence and mortality: getting at the root cause.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2019Article
- Visualising and quantifying 'excess deaths' in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK and the rest of Western Europe.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Article
- Rapid transition from drinking to alcohol dependence among adolescent and young-adult newly incident drinkers in the United States, 2002-2013.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2016Article
- Alcohol Experiences Viewed Mutoscopically: Newly Incident Drinking of Twelve- to Twenty-Five-Year-Olds in the United States, 2002-2013.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2016Article
- Taking the First Full Drink: Epidemiological Evidence on Male-Female Differences in the United States.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2016Article
- Article
- Incidence and Mortality Trends in German Women with Breast Cancer Using Age, Period and Cohort 1999 to 2008.PloS one · 2016Article
- Kramer and Casper Respond to "A-P-C... It's Easy as 1-2-3!".American journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigations of age, period, and cohort effects are difficult because the 3 factors are linearly dependent. In a novel application, Kramer et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182(4):302-312) have used graphical analysis and statistical models to estimate the impact that age, period, and cohort effects have had on trends in black-white inequalities in heart disease mortality. Using a constrained regression approach (with the first 2 periods' effects constrained to zero), Kramer et al. find evidence that age and cohort effects figure more prominently than do period effects in contributing to relative black-white mortality differences, and they argue that early-life exposures should be given greater consideration for mitigation of racial differences in heart disease. In this invited commentary, I argue that the utility of age-period-cohort models for understanding health inequalities depends on the plausibility of the assumptions used to break the link between the 3 factors. Based on the existing age-period-cohort literature, alternative assumptions seem likely to produce substantially different results. I also argue that interpretations of the impacts of age, period, and cohort effects on racial inequalities in heart disease mortality may depend on whether inequalities are assessed on the absolute scale or the relative scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.