Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29187632›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017

Selection bias in studies of human reproduction-longevity trade-offs.

Samuli Helle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Maternal longevity and offspring sex in wild ungulates.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Samuli HelleSection of Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku 20014, Finland sayrhe@utu.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6216-3759

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A shorter lifespan as a potential cost of high reproductive effort in humans has intrigued researchers for more than a century. However, the results have been inconclusive so far and despite strong theoretical expectations we do not currently have compelling evidence for the longevity costs of reproduction. Using Monte Carlo simulation, it is shown here that a common practice in human reproduction-longevity studies using historical data (the most relevant data sources for this question), the omission of women who died prior to menopausal age from the analysis, results in severe underestimation of the potential underlying trade-off between reproduction and lifespan. In other words, assuming that such a trade-off is expressed also during reproductive years, the strength of the trade-off between reproduction and lifespan is progressively weakened when women dying during reproductive ages are sequentially and non-randomly excluded from the analysis. In cases of small sample sizes (e.g. few hundreds of observations), this selection bias by reducing statistical power may even partly explain the null results commonly found in this field. Future studies in this field should thus apply statistical approaches that account for or avoid selection bias in order to recover reliable effect size estimates between reproduction and longevity.

Indexed as

LongevityMenopauseReproductionSelection BiasFemaleFinlandHumansModels, BiologicalMonte Carlo Methodcensoringmortality selectionnon-ignorable missingnesspost-reproductive survival

Identifiers

PMID29187632
PMCPMC5740284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.