Cited by 85Survey Methodology and NonresponseDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Predictors of attrition in a longitudinal population-based study of aging

Open access
Jacobsen, Erin, Ran, Xinhui, Liu, Anran, Chang, Chung-Chou H., Ganguli, Mary·2021·International Psychogeriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies predictably experience non-random attrition over time. Among older adults, risk factors for attrition may be similar to risk factors for outcomes such as cognitive decline and dementia, potentially biasing study results. OBJECTIVE: To characterize participants lost to follow-up which can be useful in the study design and interpretation of results. METHODS: In a longitudinal aging population study with 10 years of annual follow-up, we characterized the attrited participants (77%) compared to those who remained in the study. We used multivariable logistic regression models to identify attrition predictors. We then implemented four machine learning approaches to predict attrition status from one wave to the next and compared the results of all five approaches. RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression identified those more likely to drop out as older, male, not living with another study participant, having lower cognitive test scores and higher clinical dementia ratings, lower functional ability, fewer subjective memory complaints, no physical activity, reported hobbies, or engagement in social activities, worse self-rated health, and leaving the house less often. The four machine learning approaches using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves produced similar discrimination results to the multivariable logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Attrition was most likely to occur in participants who were older, male, inactive, socially isolated, and cognitively impaired. Ignoring attrition would bias study results especially when the missing data might be related to the outcome (e.g. cognitive impairment or dementia). We discuss possible solutions including oversampling and other statistical modeling approaches.

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 · 10.1017/s1041610220000447

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • 45 of 216 (21%) who consented, started using the System and were not screening failures, had very limited data to analyze; this percentage with incomplete data could introduce bias and would be considered relatively high in a controlled trial but is anticipated in the real-world setting in an older population with comorbid conditions.

    “For example, 45 of 216 (21%) who consented, started using the System and were not screening failures, had very limited data to analyze; this percentage with incomplete data could introduce bias and would be considered relatively high in a controlled trial but is anticipated in the real-world setting in an older population with comorbid conditions (49).”

    From Observed Glycemic and Psychosocial Benefits in the Prospective Bigfoot Unity Real World Study: A 6-Month Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 85

Authors
Jacobsen, E., Ran, X., Liu, A., Chang, C.-C. H., & Ganguli, M.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Jacobsen, Erin
Venue
International Psychogeriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
767-778
ISSN
1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3017126067
Cited by
85
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Psychogeriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
attrition, older adults, aging, predictors of attrition, loss to follow-up, cognitive impairment, dementia, social isolation, physical inactivity, self-rated health, functional capacity, oversampling, missing data bias
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Patient Dropouts, Population Surveillance, Quality of Life, Health Behavior, Logistic Models, Lost to Follow-Up

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