Factors Associated with Attrition in a Longitudinal Cohort of Older Adults in the Community
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".