Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33581000›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of biostatistics2021

Power formulas for mixed effects models with random slope and intercept comparing rate of change across groups.

Yu Zhao, Steven D Edland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of biostatistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Considerations for Using eGFR Slope as an End Point in Clinical Trials.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026
    Article
  3. Sample size determination for a study with variable follow-up time.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Yu ZhaoDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health & Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, 92093-0021 La Jolla, USA.
Steven D EdlandDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health & Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, 92093-0021 La Jolla, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1153-7335

Funding

THE PGRN/TDP-43 AXIS IN ALZHEIMER?S DISEASE AND NEURODEGENERATIONP50AG016574 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI BU, GUOJUN · 1999 to 2018
$36.9M
UCSD Shiley-Marcos Alzheimer's Disease Research Center P30P30AG062429 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Steven Dyal Edland · 2019 to 2026
$34.9M
Sex-specific cognitive expression and risk in preclinical Alzheimer's diseaseR01AG066088 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BANKS, SARAH · 2019 to 2023
$3.9M
Re-visiting Methods for MCI Diagnosis to Improve Biomarker and Trial FindingsR01AG049810 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BONDI, MARK W, EDLAND, STEVEN DYAL · 2016 to 2020
$3.7M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062429NIA NIH HHS P50 AG016574NIA NIH HHS R01 AG049810NIA NIH HHS R01 AG066088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have previously derived power calculation formulas for cohort studies and clinical trials using the longitudinal mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts to compare rate of change across groups [Ard & Edland, Power calculations for clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheim Dis 2011;21:369-77]. We here generalize these power formulas to accommodate 1) missing data due to study subject attrition common to longitudinal studies, 2) unequal sample size across groups, and 3) unequal variance parameters across groups. We demonstrate how these formulas can be used to power a future study even when the design of available pilot study data (i.e., number and interval between longitudinal observations) does not match the design of the planned future study. We demonstrate how differences in variance parameters across groups, typically overlooked in power calculations, can have a dramatic effect on statistical power. This is especially relevant to clinical trials, where changes over time in the treatment arm reflect background variability in progression observed in the placebo control arm plus variability in response to treatment, meaning that power calculations based only on the placebo arm covariance structure may be anticonservative. These more general power formulas are a useful resource for understanding the relative influence of these multiple factors on the efficiency of cohort studies and clinical trials, and for designing future trials under the random slopes and intercepts model.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseHumansLongitudinal StudiesModels, StatisticalPilot ProjectsSample Sizeclinical triallinear mixed effects model; powersample sizestudy subject attrition

Identifiers

PMID33581000
PMCPMC9156336

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.