CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 420Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling

Open access
Lennon, Hannah, Kelly, Scott, Sperrin, Matthew, Buchan, Iain, Cross, Amanda J, Leitzmann, Michael, Cook, Michael B, Renehan, Andrew G·2018·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683PMC PMC6042544
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: Latent class trajectory modelling (LCTM) is a relatively new methodology in epidemiology to describe life-course exposures, which simplifies heterogeneous populations into homogeneous patterns or classes. However, for a given dataset, it is possible to derive scores of different models based on number of classes, model structure and trajectory property. Here, we rationalise a systematic framework to derive a ‘core’ favoured model. Methods: We developed an eight-step framework: step 1: a scoping model; step 2: refining the number of classes; step 3: refining model structure (from fixed-effects through to a flexible random-effect specification); step 4: model adequacy assessment; step 5: graphical presentations; step 6: use of additional discrimination tools (‘degree of separation’; Elsensohn’s envelope of residual plots); step 7: clinical characterisation and plausibility; and step 8: sensitivity analysis. We illustrated these steps using data from the NIH-AARP cohort of repeated determinations of body mass index (BMI) at baseline (mean age: 62.5 years), and BMI derived by weight recall at ages 18, 35 and 50 years. Results: From 288 993 participants, we derived a five-class model for each gender (men: 177 455; women: 111 538). From seven model structures, the favoured model was a proportional random quadratic structure (model F). Favourable properties were also noted for the unrestricted random quadratic structure (model G). However, class proportions varied considerably by model structure—concordance between models F and G were moderate (Cohen κ: men, 0.57; women, 0.65) but poor with other models. Model adequacy assessments, evaluations using discrimination tools, clinical plausibility and sensitivity analyses supported our model selection. Conclusion: We propose a framework to construct and select a ‘core’ LCTM, which will facilitate generalisability of results in future studies.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 BMI mean trajectories by men (left) and women (right) for models A–G. Colours are used to discriminate classes within each plot but should not be used for direct comparisons across plots. BMI, body mass index.
Figure 1 BMI mean trajectories by men (left) and women (right) for models A–G. Colours are used to discriminate classes within each plot but should not be used for direct comparisons across plots. BMI, body mass index.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Illustration of the local (Elsensohn) residual envelope plots (shown here for model B).
Figure 2 Illustration of the local (Elsensohn) residual envelope plots (shown here for model B).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 420

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lennon, H., Kelly, S., Sperrin, M., Buchan, I., Cross, A. J., Leitzmann, M., Cook, M. B., & Renehan, A. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Lennon, Hannah
  • Renehan, Andrew G
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-07
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e020683
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683
PMC
PMC6042544
OpenAlex
W2794722104
Cited by
419
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10
FWCI
12.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Cancer Research UK
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
life course exposure, model selection, number of classes, model adequacy assessment, degree of separation, residual plots, body mass index trajectories, sensitivity analysis
MeSH terms
Latent Class Analysis, Adolescent, Adult, Body Weight, Diet, Female, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Mental Recall, Risk Factors, United States, Cohort Studies, Body Mass Index, Young Adult

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