Factors Associated with Attrition in a Longitudinal Cohort of Older Adults in the Community
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Retaining participants in longitudinal studies increases their power. We undertook this study in a population-based longitudinal cohort of adults with COPD to determine the factors associated with increased cohort attrition. Methods: In the longitudinal population-based Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study, 1561 adults > 40 years old were randomly recruited from 9 urban sites. Participants completed in-person visits at 18-month intervals and also were followed up every 3 months over the phone or by email. The cohort retention for the study and the reasons for attrition were analyzed. Hazard ratios and robust standard errors were calculated using Cox regression methods to explore the associations between participants who remained in the study and those who did not. Results: The median follow-up (years) of the study is 9.0 years. The overall mean retention was 77%. Reasons for attrition (23%) were: dropout by participant (39%), loss of contact (27%), investigator-initiated withdrawal (15%), deaths (9%), serious disease (9%), and relocation (2%). Factors independently associated with attrition were lower educational attainment, higher pack-year tobacco consumption, diagnosed cardiovascular disease, and a higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score: adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 1.43(1.11, 1.85); 1.01(1.00, 1.01); 1.44(1.13, 1.83); 1.06(1.02, 1.10) respectively. Conclusions: Identification and awareness of risk factors for attrition could direct targeted retention strategies in longitudinal studies. Moreover, the identification of patient characteristics associated with study dropout could address any potential bias introduced by differential dropouts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it