ArticleDemography2017
An Assessment and Extension of the Mechanism-Based Approach to the Identification of Age-Period-Cohort Models.
Article in Demography, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age-Period-Cohort analysis of gonorrhea surveillance data in Eastern China from 2005 to 2024.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- [Analysis of epidemiological trends from 1990 to 2021 of liver cancer in China].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Temporal Trends of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Burden in the East and Southeast Asia from 1990 to 2021: An Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Getting a Grip on Secular Changes: Age-Period-Cohort Modeling of Grip Strength in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022Article
- Trends in Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity and Mortality in American Indians Over 25 Years: The Strong Heart Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many methods have been proposed to solve the age-period-cohort (APC) linear identification problem, but most are not theoretically informed and may lead to biased estimators of APC effects. One exception is the mechanism-based approach recently proposed and based on Pearl's front-door criterion; this approach ensures consistent APC effect estimators in the presence of a complete set of intermediate variables between one of age, period, cohort, and the outcome of interest, as long as the assumed parametric models for all the relevant causal pathways are correct. Through a simulation study mimicking APC data on cardiovascular mortality, we demonstrate possible pitfalls that users of the mechanism-based approach may encounter under realistic conditions: namely, when (1) the set of available intermediate variables is incomplete, (2) intermediate variables are affected by two or more of the APC variables (while this feature is not acknowledged in the analysis), and (3) unaccounted confounding is present between intermediate variables and the outcome. Furthermore, we show how the mechanism-based approach can be extended beyond the originally proposed linear and probit regression models to incorporate all generalized linear models, as well as nonlinearities in the predictors, using Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the observed biases resulting from departures from underlying assumptions, we formulate guidelines for the application of the mechanism-based approach (extended or not).
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.