Cargando…

Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling

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 b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lennon, Hannah, Kelly, Scott, Sperrin, Matthew, Buchan, Iain, Cross, Amanda J, Leitzmann, Michael, Cook, Michael B, Renehan, Andrew G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29982203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683
_version_ 1783339175432421376
author Lennon, Hannah
Kelly, Scott
Sperrin, Matthew
Buchan, Iain
Cross, Amanda J
Leitzmann, Michael
Cook, Michael B
Renehan, Andrew G
author_facet Lennon, Hannah
Kelly, Scott
Sperrin, Matthew
Buchan, Iain
Cross, Amanda J
Leitzmann, Michael
Cook, Michael B
Renehan, Andrew G
author_sort Lennon, Hannah
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6042544
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60425442018-07-16 Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling Lennon, Hannah Kelly, Scott Sperrin, Matthew Buchan, Iain Cross, Amanda J Leitzmann, Michael Cook, Michael B Renehan, Andrew G BMJ Open Research Methods 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6042544/ /pubmed/29982203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
Lennon, Hannah
Kelly, Scott
Sperrin, Matthew
Buchan, Iain
Cross, Amanda J
Leitzmann, Michael
Cook, Michael B
Renehan, Andrew G
Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title_full Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title_fullStr Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title_full_unstemmed Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title_short Framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
title_sort framework to construct and interpret latent class trajectory modelling
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29982203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020683
work_keys_str_mv AT lennonhannah frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT kellyscott frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT sperrinmatthew frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT buchaniain frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT crossamandaj frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT leitzmannmichael frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT cookmichaelb frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling
AT renehanandrewg frameworktoconstructandinterpretlatentclasstrajectorymodelling