ArticlePloS one2025
Some simulations of age-period-cohort analysis applying Bayesian regularization: Conditions for using random walk model.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- National Burden of Breast Cancer in Saudi Arabia, 1990-2023, With Forecasts to 2050: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.Evidance health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age-period-cohort (APC) analysis, one of the fundamental time-series models, has an identification problem of the inability to separate linear components of the three effects. However, constraints to solve the problem are still controversial because multilevel analysis used in many studies results in the linear component of cohort effects being close to zero. In addition, previous studies do not compare the Bayesian cohort model proposed by Nakamura with the well-known intrinsic estimator. This paper focuses on three models of Bayesian regularization using priors of normal distributions. A random effects model refers to multilevel analysis, a ridge regression model is equivalent to the intrinsic estimator, and a random walk model refers to the Bayesian cohort model. Here, applying Bayesian regularization in APC analysis is to estimate linear components by using nonlinear components and priors. We aim to suggest conditions for using the random walk model by comparing the three models through some simulations with settings for the linear and nonlinear components. Simulation 1 emphasizes an impact of the indexes by making absolute values of the nonlinear components small. Simulation 2 randomly generates the amounts of change in the linear and nonlinear components. Simulation 3 randomly generates artificial parameters with only linear components are less likely to appear, to consider the Bayesian regularization assumption. As a result, Simulation 1 shows the random walk model, unlike the other two models, mitigates underestimating the linear component of cohort effects. On the other hand, in Simulation 2, none of the models can recover the artificial parameters. Finally, Simulation 3 shows the random walk model has less bias than the other models. Therefore, there is no one-size-fits-all APC analysis. However, this paper suggests the random walk model performs relatively well in data generating processes, where only linear components are unlikely to appear.
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.