ArticleResearch square2025
Estimating a change-point of baseline age in the longitudinal trajectories of biomarkers: application to an imaging study of preclinical Alzheimer disease.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Biomarkers are routinely measured from human biospecimens and imaging scans in Alzheimer disease (AD) research. Age is a well-known risk factor for AD. Detecting the age at which the longitudinal change in biomarkers starts to accelerate, i.e., a change-point in age, is important to design preventive interventions. Methods: We analyzed longitudinal biomarker data by a random intercept and random slope model where the slope (longitudinal rate of change) was modeled as a piecewise linear and continuous function of baseline age. We proposed to estimate the intersection of the two linear functions, i.e., the change-point in age by multiple methods: maximum (profile) likelihood, minimum squared pseudo bias, minimum variance, minimum mean square error (MSE), and a two-stage method. We simulated large numbers of data sets to evaluate the performance of these estimators and implemented them to analyze the longitudinal white matter hypointensity from brain magnetic resonance imaging scans in an AD cohort study of 616 participants to estimate the age when the longitudinal rate of change starts to accelerate. Results: Our simulations indicated that performance was universally poor for all point estimators and CI estimates when the true change-point was near the boundary or when sample size was small (N=100). Yet, the proposed change-point estimators became approximately unbiased and showed relatively small MSE when sample size increased (N>200) and the true change-point was away from boundary. The 95% CIs from these methods also provided good nominal coverage with large sample sizes if the change-point was away from boundary. When applied to the AD biomarker study, we found that almost all methods yielded similar estimates to the change-point from 59.19 years to 65.78 years, but the profile likelihood approach led to a much later estimate. Conclusions: Our proposed estimators for the change-point performed reasonably well, especially when it is away from the boundary and the sample sizes are large. Our methods revealed a largely consistent age when the longitudinal change in white matter hypointensity started to accelerate. Further research is needed to tackle more complex challenges, i.e., multiple change-points that may depend on other AD risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.