MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220679456 · doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01542-8

Using linear and natural cubic splines, SITAR, and latent trajectory models to characterise nonlinear longitudinal growth trajectories in cohort studies

2022· article· en· W4220679456 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ahmed Elhakeem, Rachael A. Hughes, Kate Tilling, Diana L. Cousminer, Stefan A. Jackowski, Tim Cole, Alex S. F. Kwong, Zheyuan Li, Struan F.A. Grant, Adam Baxter‐Jones, Babette S. Zemel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilUniversity of BristolEuropean CommissionMedical Research CouncilRoyal SocietyEconomic and Social Research CouncilDairy Farmers of CanadaNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsTrajectoryNonlinear systemSpline (mechanical)EconometricsLinear modelLatent variableStatisticsMathematicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data analysis can improve our understanding of the influences on health trajectories across the life-course. There are a variety of statistical models which can be used, and their fitting and interpretation can be complex, particularly where there is a nonlinear trajectory. Our aim was to provide an accessible guide along with applied examples to using four sophisticated modelling procedures for describing nonlinear growth trajectories. METHODS: This expository paper provides an illustrative guide to summarising nonlinear growth trajectories for repeatedly measured continuous outcomes using (i) linear spline and (ii) natural cubic spline linear mixed-effects (LME) models, (iii) Super Imposition by Translation and Rotation (SITAR) nonlinear mixed effects models, and (iv) latent trajectory models. The underlying model for each approach, their similarities and differences, and their advantages and disadvantages are described. Their application and correct interpretation of their results is illustrated by analysing repeated bone mass measures to characterise bone growth patterns and their sex differences in three cohort studies from the UK, USA, and Canada comprising 8500 individuals and 37,000 measurements from ages 5-40 years. Recommendations for choosing a modelling approach are provided along with a discussion and signposting on further modelling extensions for analysing trajectory exposures and outcomes, and multiple cohorts. RESULTS: Linear and natural cubic spline LME models and SITAR provided similar summary of the mean bone growth trajectory and growth velocity, and the sex differences in growth patterns. Growth velocity (in grams/year) peaked during adolescence, and peaked earlier in females than males e.g., mean age at peak bone mineral content accrual from multicohort SITAR models was 12.2 years in females and 13.9 years in males. Latent trajectory models (with trajectory shapes estimated using a natural cubic spline) identified up to four subgroups of individuals with distinct trajectories throughout adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: LME models with linear and natural cubic splines, SITAR, and latent trajectory models are useful for describing nonlinear growth trajectories, and these methods can be adapted for other complex traits. Choice of method depends on the research aims, complexity of the trajectory, and available data. Scripts and synthetic datasets are provided for readers to replicate trajectory modelling and visualisation using the R statistical computing software.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.889
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207