| Title |
An Assessment and Extension of the Mechanism-Based Approach to the Identification of Age-Period-Cohort Models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-017-0562-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maarten J. Bijlsma, Rhian M. Daniel, Fanny Janssen, Bianca L. De Stavola |
| Abstract |
Many methods have been proposed to solve the age-period-cohort (APC) linear identification problem, but most are not theoretically informed and may lead to biased estimators of APC effects. One exception is the mechanism-based approach recently proposed and based on Pearl's front-door criterion; this approach ensures consistent APC effect estimators in the presence of a complete set of intermediate variables between one of age, period, cohort, and the outcome of interest, as long as the assumed parametric models for all the relevant causal pathways are correct. Through a simulation study mimicking APC data on cardiovascular mortality, we demonstrate possible pitfalls that users of the mechanism-based approach may encounter under realistic conditions: namely, when (1) the set of available intermediate variables is incomplete, (2) intermediate variables are affected by two or more of the APC variables (while this feature is not acknowledged in the analysis), and (3) unaccounted confounding is present between intermediate variables and the outcome. Furthermore, we show how the mechanism-based approach can be extended beyond the originally proposed linear and probit regression models to incorporate all generalized linear models, as well as nonlinearities in the predictors, using Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the observed biases resulting from departures from underlying assumptions, we formulate guidelines for the application of the mechanism-based approach (extended or not). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 30% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 12 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,109,762
of 24,669,628 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,994
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,498
of 312,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#23
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,669,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.