ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2017
Age-at-onset subsets of bipolar I disorders: A critical insight into admixture analyses.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bipolar disorder: Trimodal age-at-onset distribution.Bipolar disorders · 2021Review
- Clinical correlates of age at onset distribution in bipolar disorder: a comparison between diagnostic subgroups.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2017Article
- Age-at-onset subsets of bipolar I disorders: A critical insight into admixture analyses.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gaussian mixture analysis is frequently used to model the age-at-onset (AAO) in bipolar I disorder and identify homogeneous subsets of patients. This study aimed to examine whether, using admixture analysis of AAO, cross-sectional designs (which cause right truncation), unreliable diagnosis for individuals younger than 10 years old (which causes left truncation) and the selection criterion used for admixture analysis impact the number of identified subsets. A simulation study was performed. Different criteria - the likelihood ratio test (LRT), the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) - were compared using no, left and/or right truncation simulated data. The error rate of each criterion (percentage of erroneous number of detected subsets) was estimated. An application to two real databases, including 2,876 and 1,393 patients, is provided. Without data truncation and regardless of the distribution of AAO, the LRT and the AIC had much higher error rates (12% and 33%, respectively) than the BIC (1%). For a homogeneous population, the error rate increased with the introduction of left truncation. This study shows that the number of subsets identified using admixture analysis may depend on the sample size, the selection criterion, and the study design.
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.