Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40367286›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Maximum likelihood estimation of age-specific incidence rate from prevalence.

Sabrina Voß, Annika Hoyer, Ralph Brinks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Sabrina VoßChair for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health/School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6465-5167
Annika HoyerBiostatistics and Medical Biometry, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-9951
Ralph BrinksChair for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health/School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Usually, age-specific incidence rates of chronic diseases are estimated from longitudinal studies that follow participants over time and record incident cases. However, these studies can be cost- and time-expensive and are prone to loss to follow up. An alternative method allows incidence estimation based on aggregated data from (cross-sectional) prevalence and mortality studies using relations between incidence, prevalence and mortality described by the illness-death model and a related partial differential equation. Currently, adequate options for the assessment of the accuracy of the achieved incidence estimates are missing and bootstrap resampling methods are used instead. Therefore, we developed novel ways to estimate incidence rates based on the maximum likelihood principle with corresponding confidence intervals. Historical data about breathlessness in British coal miners and diabetes in Germany are used to illustrate the applicability of this method in scenarios with non-differential and differential mortality. We have two scenarios of available data in the case of differential mortality: mortality of diseased and all-cause mortality, or all-cause mortality and mortality rate ratio. Our results show that estimation of incidence rates and corresponding confidence intervals of chronic conditions based on aggregated data with the maximum likelihood method using a binomial likelihood function is possible and can replace resampling techniques.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseIncidenceAdultAgedAge FactorsDiabetes MellitusFemaleGermanyHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleMiddle AgedPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID40367286
PMCPMC12077784

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.