Re: "Incidence of dementia among participants and nonparticipants in a longitudinal study of cognitive aging"

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 181, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 291-292

  Binder, Nadine ^a,b   Schumacher, Martin ^a   Joly, Pierre ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGING; COGNITION; COGNITIVE AGING; DEATH; DEMENTIA; DEMOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LETTER; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; PROBABILITY; RELAPSE; RISK FACTOR; SURVIVAL; FEMALE; MALE;

DEMENTIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 84927961493     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu475     Document Type: Letter

References (13)

1. Knopman DS, Roberts RO, Pankratz VS, et al. Incidence of dementia among participants and nonparticipants in a longitudinal study of cognitive aging. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180(4):414-423.
2. Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, et al. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med. 1999;18(6): 695-706.
3. Southern DA, Faris PD, Brant R, et al. Kaplan-Meier methods yielded misleading results in competing risk scenarios. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1110-1114.
4. Andersen PK, Geskus RB, deWitte T, et al. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol. 2012; 41(3):861-870.
5. Andersen PK, Keiding N. Interpretability and importance of functionals in competing risks and multistate models. Stat Med. 2012;31(11-12):1074-1088.
6. Wolkewitz M, Cooper BS, Bonten MJ, et al. Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ. 2014;349:g5060.
7. Joly P, Commenges D, Helmer C, et al. A penalized likelihood approach for an illness-death model with interval-censored data: application to age-specific incidence of dementia. Biostatistics. 2002;3(3):433-443.
8. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed September 29, 2014.
9. Touraine C, Gerds T, Joly P. The SmoothHazard package for R: fitting regression models to interval-censored observations of illness-death models. (Technical report 12). Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen; 2013.
10. Leffondré K, Touraine C, Helmer C, et al. Interval-censored time-to-event and competing risk with death: Is the illness-death model more accurate than the Cox model? Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):1177-1186.
11. Binder N, Schumacher M. Missing information caused by death leads to bias in relative risk estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(10):1111-1120.
12. Hoover DR, Peng Y, Saah AJ, et al. Projecting disease when death is likely. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;143(9):943-952.
13. Grambauer N, Schumacher M, Dettenkofer M, et al. Incidence densities in a competing events analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(9):1077-1084.