ArticlePloS one2017
Assessing robustness of hazard ratio estimates to outcome misclassification in longitudinal panel studies with application to Alzheimer's disease.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overactive bladder medications and risk of emergency hospital admissions with delirium in adults without dementia: self-controlled case series.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Dementia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: Comparing metformin with no pharmacological treatment.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analyses of imperfectly assessed time to event outcomes give rise to biased hazard ratio estimates. This bias is a common challenge for studies of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) because AD neuropathology can only be identified through brain autopsy and is therefore not available for most study participants. Clinical AD diagnosis, although more widely available, has imperfect sensitivity and specificity relative to AD neuropathology. In this study we present a sensitivity analysis approach using a bias-adjusted discrete proportional hazards model to quantify robustness of results to misclassification of a time to event outcome and apply this method to data from a longitudinal panel study of AD. Using data on 1,955 participants from the Adult Changes in Thought study we analyzed the association between average glucose level and AD neuropathology and conducted sensitivity analyses to explore how estimated hazard ratios varied according to AD classification accuracy. Unadjusted hazard ratios were closer to the null than estimates obtained under most scenarios for misclassification investigated. Confidence interval estimates from the unadjusted model were substantially underestimated compared to adjusted estimates. This study demonstrates the importance of exploring outcome misclassification in time to event analyses and provides an approach that can be undertaken without requiring validation data.
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.