Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41559565›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Assessing the impact of variance heterogeneity and misspecification in mixed-effects location-scale models.

Vincent Jeanselme, Marco Palma, Jessica Barrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Vincent JeanselmeMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. vj2292@columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6204-666X
Marco PalmaMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. marco.palma@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0497-9001
Jessica BarrettMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1889-9803

Funding

Medical Research Council MC UU 00040/02Medical Research Council MR/V020595/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLinear Mixed Model (LMM) is a common statistical approach to model the relation between exposure and outcome while capturing individual variability through random effects. However, this model assumes the homogeneity of the error term’s variance. Breaking this assumption, known as homoscedasticity, can bias estimates and, consequently, may change a study’s conclusions. If this assumption is unmet, the mixed-effect location-scale model (MELSM) offers a solution to account for within-individual variability.

methodsOur work explores how LMMs and MELSMs behave when the homoscedasticity assumption is not met. Further, we study how misspecification affects inference for MELSM. To this aim, we propose a simulation study with longitudinal data and evaluate the estimates’ bias and coverage.

resultsOur simulations show that neglecting heteroscedasticity in LMMs leads to loss of coverage for the estimated coefficients and biases the estimates of the standard deviations of the random effects. In MELSMs, scale misspecification does not bias the location model, but location misspecification alters the scale estimates.

conclusionOur simulation study illustrates the importance of modelling heteroscedasticity, with potential implications beyond mixed effect models, for generalised linear mixed models for non-normal outcomes and joint models with survival data.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAlgorithmsBiasComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLinear ModelsLongitudinal StudiesDistributional regressionHeteroscedasticityMixed-effects location-scale models (MELSM)Model misspecificationSimulation study

Identifiers

PMID41559565
PMCPMC12961882

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.