Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30557389›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Early-life environmental exposures and childhood growth: A comparison of statistical methods.

Brianna C Heggeseth, Alvaro Aleman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Brianna C HeggesethDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Williams College, Williamstown, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3946-1715
Alvaro AlemanDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Williams College, Williamstown, MA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing literature that suggests environmental exposure during key developmental periods could have harmful impacts on growth and development of humans. Understanding and estimating the relationship between early-life exposure and human growth is vital to studying the adverse health impacts of environmental exposure. We compare two statistical tools, mixed-effects models with interaction terms and growth mixture models, used to measure the association between exposure and change over time within the context of non-linear growth and non-monotonic relationships between exposure and growth. We illustrate their strengths and weaknesses through a real data example and simulation study. The data example, which focuses on the relationship between phthalates and the body mass index growth of children, indicates that the conclusions from the two models can differ. The simulation study provides a broader understanding of the robustness of these models in detecting the relationships between any exposure and growth that could be observed. Data-driven growth mixture models are more robust to non-monotonic growth and stochastic relationships but at the expense of interpretability. We offer concrete modeling strategies to estimate complex relationships with growth patterns.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentModels, StatisticalAdolescentBody Mass IndexChildChild, PreschoolComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmental ExposureFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMaternal ExposureModels, BiologicalPhthalic Acidsphthalic acidPhthalic Acids

Identifiers

PMID30557389
PMCPMC6296561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.