ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Are we there yet? Estimating the waves of follow-up required for stable effect estimates in cognitive aging research.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accelerated Epigenetic and Inflammatory Aging and Intrinsic Capacity.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Associations of Immigrant Generation with Level and Change in Self-Reported Everyday Cognition and Objectively Measured Cognition.Alzheimer disease and associated disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive aging research relies on longitudinal data, but extended follow-up is costly. The extent to which estimates and precision from data with shorter follow-up diverge from estimates based on longer follow-up is unknown. The necessary follow-up period may depend on model specification, i.e., modeling the timescale as time-since-baseline or current age. We used data on adults age 65+ from the 2006-2018 U.S. Health and Retirement Study. For associations of 8 commonly studied dementia risk factors with cognitive decline, we compared coefficients and variance estimates to results from benchmark models (i.e., using 7 waves and/or specifying time-since-baseline). We varied the hypothetical follow-up length (1-7 waves, representing 0-12 years of follow-up) and timescale specification. Among individuals 65-80 years old at baseline, estimates of cognitive change in models with <4 waves of follow-up differed meaningfully in terms of both coefficients and variance from estimates using full follow-up, regardless of timescale specification. Differences by length of follow-up time were less pronounced among those >80 years of age at baseline, in part due to sample attrition. In models assuming equal follow-up duration, estimates of cognitive change specified by current age differed from estimates using time-since-baseline but were more precise, especially with shorter follow-up.
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.