Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34421759›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Cognition-Mortality Associations Are More Pronounced When Estimated Jointly in Longitudinal and Time-to-Event Models.

Stephen Aichele, Sezen Cekic, Patrick Rabbitt, Paolo Ghisletta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Stephen AicheleDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Sezen CekicFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Patrick RabbittDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Paolo GhislettaFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Colorado State University · USFORS – Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences · CHUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With aging populations worldwide, there is growing interest in links between cognitive decline and elevated mortality risk-and, by extension, analytic approaches to further clarify these associations. Toward this end, some researchers have compared cognitive trajectories of survivors vs. decedents while others have examined longitudinal changes in cognition as predictive of mortality risk. A two-stage modeling framework is typically used in this latter approach; however, several recent studies have used joint longitudinal-survival modeling (i.e., estimating longitudinal change in cognition conditionally on mortality risk, and vice versa). Methodological differences inherent to these approaches may influence estimates of cognitive decline and cognition-mortality associations. These effects may vary across cognitive domains insofar as changes in broad fluid and crystallized abilities are differentially sensitive to aging and mortality risk. We compared these analytic approaches as applied to data from a large-sample, repeated-measures study of older adults (

Indexed as

Bayesiancognitive declinejoint modelslifespanlongitudinalsurvival

Identifiers

PMID34421759
PMCPMC8378533
OpenAlexW3189353284

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.