Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35521689›Full record

ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2022

Accessible analysis of longitudinal data with linear mixed effects models.

Jessica I Murphy, Nicholas E Weaver, Audrey E Hendricks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Reply to the Comment by Zhang et al.European journal of neurology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Jessica I MurphyMathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8400-7485
Nicholas E WeaverMathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA.
Audrey E HendricksMathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Longitudinal studies are commonly used to examine possible causal factors associated with human health and disease. However, the statistical models, such as two-way ANOVA, often applied in these studies do not appropriately model the experimental design, resulting in biased and imprecise results. Here, we describe the linear mixed effects (LME) model and how to use it for longitudinal studies. We re-analyze a dataset published by Blanton et al. in 2016 that modeled growth trajectories in mice after microbiome implantation from nourished or malnourished children. We compare the fit and stability of different parameterizations of ANOVA and LME models; most models found that the nourished versus malnourished growth trajectories differed significantly. We show through simulation that the results from the two-way ANOVA and LME models are not always consistent. Incorrectly modeling correlated data can result in increased rates of false positives or false negatives, supporting the need to model correlated data correctly. We provide an interactive Shiny App to enable accessible and appropriate analysis of longitudinal data using LME models.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAnimalsComputer SimulationLinear ModelsLongitudinal StudiesMiceANOVALinear mixed effectsLongitudinalMicrobiomeMouseShiny app

Identifiers

PMID35521689
PMCPMC9092652

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.