Are we there yet? Estimating the waves of follow-up required for stable effect estimates in cognitive aging research

Cognitive aging research relies on longitudinal data, but extended follow-up is costly. The extent to which estimates and precision from data with shorter follow-up diverge from estimates based on longer follow-up is unknown. The necessary follow-up period may depend on model specification, i.e., modeling the timescale as time-since-baseline or current age. We used data on adults age 65+ from the 2006-2018 U.S. Health and Retirement Study. For associations of 8 commonly studied dementia risk factors with cognitive decline, we compared coefficients and variance estimates to results from benchmark models (i.e., using 7 waves and/or specifying time-since-baseline). We varied the hypothetical follow-up length (1-7 waves, representing 0-12 years of follow-up) and timescale specification. Among individuals 65-80 years old at baseline, estimates of cognitive change in models with <4 waves of follow-up differed meaningfully in terms of both coefficients and variance from estimates using full follow-up, regardless of timescale specification. Differences by length of follow-up time were less pronounced among those >80 years of age at baseline, in part due to sample attrition. In models assuming equal follow-up duration, estimates of cognitive change specified by current age differed from estimates using time-since-baseline but were more precise, especially with shorter follow-up.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2025-03-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf049
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Cognitive Science and Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are we there yet? Estimating the waves of follow-up required for stable effect estimates in cognitive aging research

M. Maria Glymour, Charles E. McCulloch, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda, Jacqueline M. Torres et al.
2 citations
American Journal of Epidemiology
Cognitive Science and Mapping
4.96
article

Are we there yet? Estimating the waves of follow-up required for stable effect estimates in cognitive aging research

M. Maria Glymour, Charles E. McCulloch, Elizabeth Rose Mayeda, Jacqueline M. Torres, Eleanor Hayes‐Larson, Jingxuan Wang, Mary C. Thoma
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Cognitive aging research relies on longitudinal data, but extended follow-up is costly. The extent to which estimates and precision from data with shorter follow-up diverge from estimates based on longer follow-up is unknown. The necessary follow-up period may depend on model specification, i.e., modeling the timescale as time-since-baseline or current age. We used data on adults age 65+ from the 2006-2018 U.S. Health and Retirement Study. For associations of 8 commonly studied dementia risk factors with cognitive decline, we compared coefficients and variance estimates to results from benchmark models (i.e., using 7 waves and/or specifying time-since-baseline). We varied the hypothetical follow-up length (1-7 waves, representing 0-12 years of follow-up) and timescale specification. Among individuals 65-80 years old at baseline, estimates of cognitive change in models with <4 waves of follow-up differed meaningfully in terms of both coefficients and variance from estimates using full follow-up, regardless of timescale specification. Differences by length of follow-up time were less pronounced among those >80 years of age at baseline, in part due to sample attrition. In models assuming equal follow-up duration, estimates of cognitive change specified by current age differed from estimates using time-since-baseline but were more precise, especially with shorter follow-up.

American Journal of EpidemiologyVol. 195(3)
Boston University (US), University of Southern California (US), Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), University of California, San Francisco (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Cognitive Science and Mapping
4.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.