BACKGROUND: The interpretation of neuropathological studies of dementia and Alzheimer's disease is complicated by potential selection mechanisms that can drive whether or not a study participant is observed to undergo autopsy. Notwithstanding this, there appears to have been little emphasis placed on potential selection bias in published reports from population-based neuropathological studies of dementia. METHODS: We provide an overview of methodological issues relating to the identification of and adjustment for selection bias. When information is available on factors that govern selection, inverse-probability weighting provides an analytic approach to adjust for selection bias. The weights help alleviate bias by serving to bridge differences between the population from which the observed data may be viewed as a representative sample and the target population, identified as being of scientific interest. RESULTS: We illustrate the methods with data obtained from the Adult Changes in Thought study. Adjustment for potential selection bias yields substantially strengthened association between neuropathological measurements and risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Armed with analytic techniques to adjust for selection bias and to ensure generalizability of results from population-based neuropathological studies, researchers should consider incorporating information related to selection into their data collection schemes. 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: The interpretation of neuropathological studies of dementia and Alzheimer's disease is complicated by potential selection mechanisms that can drive whether or not a study participant is observed to undergo autopsy. Notwithstanding this, there appears to have been little emphasis placed on potential selection bias in published reports from population-based neuropathological studies of dementia. METHODS: We provide an overview of methodological issues relating to the identification of and adjustment for selection bias. When information is available on factors that govern selection, inverse-probability weighting provides an analytic approach to adjust for selection bias. The weights help alleviate bias by serving to bridge differences between the population from which the observed data may be viewed as a representative sample and the target population, identified as being of scientific interest. RESULTS: We illustrate the methods with data obtained from the Adult Changes in Thought study. Adjustment for potential selection bias yields substantially strengthened association between neuropathological measurements and risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Armed with analytic techniques to adjust for selection bias and to ensure generalizability of results from population-based neuropathological studies, researchers should consider incorporating information related to selection into their data collection schemes. 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Lon White; Helen Petrovitch; John Hardman; James Nelson; Daron G Davis; G Webster Ross; Kamal Masaki; Lenore Launer; William R Markesbery Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: D H Silverman; G W Small; C Y Chang; C S Lu; M A Kung De Aburto; W Chen; J Czernin; S I Rapoport; P Pietrini; G E Alexander; M B Schapiro; W J Jagust; J M Hoffman; K A Welsh-Bohmer; A Alavi; C M Clark; E Salmon; M J de Leon; R Mielke; J L Cummings; A P Kowell; S S Gambhir; C K Hoh; M E Phelps Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Walter A Kukull; Roger Higdon; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Linda Teri; Gerard D Schellenberg; Gerald van Belle; Lance Jolley; Eric B Larson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2002-11
Authors: E L Teng; K Hasegawa; A Homma; Y Imai; E Larson; A Graves; K Sugimoto; T Yamaguchi; H Sasaki; D Chiu Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 1994 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Joshua A Sonnen; Eric B Larson; Sebastien Haneuse; Randy Woltjer; Ge Li; Paul K Crane; Suzanne Craft; Thomas J Montine Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Erin L Abner; Richard J Kryscio; Frederick A Schmitt; David W Fardo; Daniela C Moga; Eseosa T Ighodaro; Gregory A Jicha; Lei Yu; Hiroko H Dodge; Chengjie Xiong; Randall L Woltjer; Julie A Schneider; Nigel J Cairns; David A Bennett; Peter T Nelson Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Cecilia S Lee; Eric B Larson; Laura E Gibbons; Caitlin S Latimer; Shannon E Rose; Leanne L Hellstern; C Dirk Keene; Paul K Crane Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Susan E Puumala; Julie A Ross; James H Feusner; Gail E Tomlinson; Marcio H Malogolowkin; Mark D Krailo; Logan G Spector Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 6.918