ArticleStatistics in medicine2019
Bias induced by ignoring double truncation inherent in autopsy-confirmed survival studies of neurodegenerative diseases.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2019. 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.
- Goodness-of-Fit Testing for a Regression Model With a Doubly Truncated Response.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Predictors of Care Home Admission and Survival Rate in Patients With Syndromes Associated With Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration in Europe.Neurology · 2024Observational
- Cox regression with doubly truncated responses and time-dependent covariates: the impact of innovation on firm survival.Journal of applied statistics · 2024Article
- Different cohort, disparate results: Selection bias is a key factor in autopsy cohorts.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024Article
- Cox regression model under dependent truncation.Biometrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurodegenerative diseases require an autopsy for confirmation of diagnosis. When death is the event of interest, studies based on autopsy-confirmed diagnoses result in right truncated survival times because individuals who live past the end of study date do not receive a pathological diagnosis and are therefore not included in the sample. Furthermore, many studies of neurodegenerative diseases recruit subjects only after the onset of the disease, which may result in left truncated survival times. Therefore, double truncation, the simultaneous presence of left and right truncation, is inherent in many autopsy-confirmed survival studies of neurodegenerative diseases. The main focus of this paper is to inform about the inherent double truncation in these studies and demonstrate how to properly estimate and compare survival distribution functions in this setting. We do so by conducting a case study of subjects with autopsy-confirmed Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. This case study is supported by extensive simulation studies, which provide several new contributions to the literature on survival distribution estimation in the context of double truncation.
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.