Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research

Weuve, Jennifer, Proust‐Lima, Cécile, Power, Melinda C., Gross, Alden L., Hofer, Scott M., Thiébaut, Rodolphe, Chêne, Geneviève, Glymour, M. Maria, Dufouil, Carole, MELODEM Initiative·2015·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature reflects little consensus on “best practices.” We present findings from a large scientific working group on research methods for clinical and population studies of dementia, which identified five categories of methodological challenges as follows: (1) attrition/sample selection, including selective survival; (2) measurement, including uncertainty in diagnostic criteria, measurement error in neuropsychological assessments, and practice or retest effects; (3) specification of longitudinal models when participants are followed for months, years, or even decades; (4) time‐varying measurements; and (5) high‐dimensional data. We explain why each challenge is important in dementia research and how it could compromise the translation of research findings into effective prevention or care strategies. We advance a checklist of potential sources of bias that should be routinely addressed when reporting dementia research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jalz.2015.06.1885

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009893 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816bbe14 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s11065-008-9066-x · DOI
  4. 10.1093/ije/dys148 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/a0015566 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02125.x · DOI
  7. Kaufman JS, 2012, Epidemiologic methods are useless: They can only give you answers, Epidemiology, 23, 785, 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31826c30e6 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/aje/kwm092 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52407.x · DOI
  10. 10.1093/gerona/glq115 · DOI
  11. 10.2105/AJPH.86.1.62 · DOI
  12. Raji MA, 2004, Cognitive status and incident disability in older Mexican Americans: Findings from the Hispanic established population for the epidemiological study of the elderly, Ethn Dis, 14, 26
  13. 10.1093/gerona/61.12.1330 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02818.x · DOI
  15. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010262 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.05.006 · DOI
  17. 10.1186/1471-2458-6-185 · DOI
  18. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31825727b5 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/biostatistics/3.3.433 · DOI
  20. 10.1017/S104161020900876X · DOI
  21. 10.1093/ije/dyt126 · DOI
  22. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318230e861 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/sim.1821 · DOI
  24. 10.1214/09-STS293 · DOI
  25. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182319159 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.arr.2008.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1136/jnnp.66.2.177 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1001/archneur.64.3.392 · DOI
  29. McLaughlin T, 2010, Assessment of potential measures in models of progression in Alzheimer disease, Neurology, 75, 1256, 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f6133d · DOI
  30. 10.1093/geronb/57.6.P548 · DOI
  31. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000621 · DOI
  32. 10.1037/a0015618 · DOI
  33. 10.1348/000711003770480020 · DOI
  34. Salthouse TA, 2010, Major issues in cognitive aging
  35. 10.1080/13854046.2012.680913 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/S1474-4422(02)00236-3 · DOI
  37. 10.1037/a0023910 · DOI
  38. 10.1027/1016-9040.11.3.196 · DOI
  39. 10.1093/aje/kwr243 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009034 · DOI
  41. 10.1093/gerona/53A.5.M337 · DOI
  42. 10.1002/sim.2098 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/ana.21509 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hoffman L, 2012, Advances in Longitudinal Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Scottsdale, 255
  45. 10.1080/15427600903578169 · DOI
  46. 10.1002/ana.22391 · DOI
  47. 10.1037/0882-7974.17.2.179 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000615/30)19:11/12<1555::AID-SIM445>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00443.x · DOI
  50. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1646 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318227b227 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1002/ana.22239 · DOI
  53. 10.1093/epirev/mxt008 · DOI
  54. Ritchie CW, 2012, The PREVENT study: A prospective cohort study to identify mid‐life biomarkers of late‐onset Alzheimer's disease, BMJ Open, 2, 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001893 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/0091-7435(75)90037-7 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/sim.5686 · DOI
  57. 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.09.001 · DOI
  59. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000733 · DOI
  60. 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00033-9 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00085-6 · DOI
  62. 10.4135/9781412976589.n27 · DOI
  63. 10.1093/eurheartj/eht001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Weuve, J., Proust‐Lima, C., Power, M. C., Gross, A. L., Hofer, S. M., Thiébaut, R., Chêne, G., Glymour, M. M., Dufouil, C., & Initiative, M.
Affiliations
  • Rush Institute for Healthy Aging Rush University Medical Center Chicago IL USA
  • INSERM U897, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Center, Bordeaux School of Public Health Bordeaux University Bordeaux France
  • Department of Epidemiology Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Baltimore MD USA
  • Department of Psychology and Centre on Aging University of Victoria Victoria BC Canada
  • Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Harvard School of Public Heath Boston MA USA
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-09
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
1098-1109
ISSN
  • 1552-5260
  • 1552-5279
Cited by
243
References
13
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review