Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42501752›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2026

Quantifying and adjusting for selection biases in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study using population-wide individual-level registry information.

Christopher Rayner, Laurie J Hannigan, Isabella Badini, Perline A Demange, Sverre Berg Ofstad, Eivind Ystrom, Tom A McAdams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International 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.

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. Estimating returns to education using the genetic lottery.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Christopher RaynerSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laurie J HanniganResearch Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Isabella BadiniDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Perline A DemangePROMENTA Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sverre Berg OfstadPROMENTA Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Eivind YstromPROMENTA Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Tom A McAdamsSocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Norwegian South East Regional Health AuthorityWellcome TrustWellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship 220382/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelective participation in research studies hampers researchers' ability to draw valid and generalizable inferences from analyses. Quantifying and adjusting for selective participation are desirable but can be challenging given the paucity of data for non-participants.

methodsWe used individual-level information from population registers to predict baseline and continued participation in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Inverse probability weights were computed from logistic regression models with elastic-net regularization. We predicted selective participation and attrition in 296 987 mothers, of whom 29% returned the first MoBa questionnaire and 12.5% returned a follow-up questionnaire 8 years later. To quantify bias, we computed sample characteristics and exposure-outcome associations in the target population and stratified samples. To compare approaches for adjusting for bias, we computed weighted sample estimates by using three sets of weights.

resultsUnweighted sample estimates were systematically different from target-population values, indicating bias due to selective participation. Baseline participation weights substantially reduced the impact of selection bias on mean values by 93% and associations by 75%. Attrition weights reduced attrition bias on mean values by 78% and associations by 50% but were less effective for reducing participation bias (22% and 14% respectively).

conclusionIn this sample, characteristics and effect estimates are substantially different from target-population values. Participation weights were relatively effective at reducing bias due to selective participation but attrition weights were not. Estimates from studies that use attrition weights may still contain non-negligible selection bias-particularly if the baseline sample is not representative of the target population. Future studies should prioritize opportunities for deriving sampling weights for participation as well as attrition.

Indexed as

MothersRegistriesAdultChildCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleNorwaySelection BiasSurveys and Questionnairesattritioninverse probability weightingMoBaobservational studiesparticipationtarget population

Identifiers

PMID42501752
PMCPMC13401474

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.