Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40721740›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Smooth predictions for age-period-cohort models: a comparison between splines and random process.

Connor Gascoigne, Andrea Riebler, Theresa Smith

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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.

Connor GascoigneMRC Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. c.gascoigne@imperial.ac.uk.
Andrea RieblerDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Theresa SmithDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAge-Period-Cohort (APC) models are well used in the context of modelling health and demographic data to produce smooth predictions of each time trend. When producing smooth predictions in the context of APC models, there are two main schools, frequentist using penalised splines, and Bayesian using random processes with little crossover between them.

methodsWe compared prediction using APC models in either a frequentist or Bayesian paradigm using theory, simulated data, and two separate real-world data examples for mental ill-health outcomes. For the theoretical comparison, we describe each method and give an accessible description highlighting how the two methods are equivalent. For the simulated and real-world data, we compared the results for both in-sample (estimation) and out-of-sample (forecasting) prediction.

resultsDuring the simulation study, the estimation results for both the penalised splines and random processes were almost identical. For the forecasting results, the random processes performed better. For the real-world examples, the estimation results for both were extremely close with random processes proving slightly better. For the real-world data forecasting results, the random processes provided a significant improvement over penalised splines.

conclusionsThe combination of theory and data examples we presented here make the relationship between splines and random processes both accessible and interpretable. Whilst there is a theoretical link between both penalised splines and random processes, when forecasting is the goal, a Bayesian random process approach displayed better predictive properties in comparison to the frequentist penalised spline approach.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremCohort StudiesComputer SimulationForecastingHumansMental DisordersAge-period-cohortBayesian modelidentifiabilitypenalised splinespredictionrandom processessmoothing

Identifiers

PMID40721740
PMCPMC12306036

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.