Indicators of "Healthy Aging" in older women (65-69 years of age). A data-mining approach based on prediction of long-term survival

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prediction of long-term survival in healthy adults requires recognition of features that serve as early indicators of successful aging. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of long-term survival in older women and to develop a multivariable model based upon longitudinal data from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We considered only the youngest subjects (<it>n </it>= 4,097) enrolled in the SOF cohort (65 to 69 years of age) and excluded older SOF subjects more likely to exhibit a "frail" phenotype. A total of 377 phenotypic measures were screened to determine which were of most value for prediction of long-term (19-year) survival. Prognostic capacity of individual predictors, and combinations of predictors, was evaluated using a cross-validation criterion with prediction accuracy assessed according to time-specific AUC statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Visual contrast sensitivity score was among the top 5 individual predictors relative to all 377 variables evaluated (mean AUC = 0.570). A 13-variable model with strong predictive performance was generated using a forward search strategy (mean AUC = 0.673). Variables within this model included a measure of physical function, smoking and diabetes status, self-reported health, contrast sensitivity, and functional status indices reflecting cumulative number of daily living impairments (HR ≥ 0.879 or RH ≤ 1.131; P < 0.001). We evaluated this model and show that it predicts long-term survival among subjects assigned differing causes of death (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease; P < 0.01). For an average follow-up time of 20 years, output from the model was associated with multiple outcomes among survivors, such as tests of cognitive function, geriatric depression, number of daily living impairments and grip strength (P < 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The multivariate model we developed characterizes a "healthy aging" phenotype based upon an integration of measures that together reflect multiple dimensions of an aging adult (65-69 years of age). Age-sensitive components of this model may be of value as biomarkers in human studies that evaluate anti-aging interventions. Our methodology could be applied to data from other longitudinal cohorts to generalize these findings, identify additional predictors of long-term survival, and to further develop the "healthy aging" concept.</p

A review of the reporting and handling of missing data in cohort studies with repeated assessment of exposure measures

Background: Retaining participants in cohort studies with multiple follow-up waves is difficult. Commonly, researchers are faced with the problem of missing data, which may introduce biased results as well as a loss of statistical power and precision. The STROBE guidelines von Elm et al. (Lancet, 370:1453-1457, 2007); Vandenbroucke et al. (PLoS Med, 4:e297, 2007) and the guidelines proposed by Sterne et al. (BMJ, 338:b2393, 2009) recommend that cohort studies report on the amount of missing data, the reasons for non-participation and non-response, and the method used to handle missing data in the analyses. We have conducted a review of publications from cohort studies in order to document the reporting of missing data for exposure measures and to describe the statistical methods used to account for the missing data. Methods: A systematic search of English language papers published from January 2000 to December 2009 was carried out in PubMed. Prospective cohort studies with a sample size greater than 1,000 that analysed data using repeated measures of exposure were included. Results: Among the 82 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, only 35 (43%) reported the amount of missing data according to the suggested guidelines. Sixty-eight papers (83%) described how they dealt with missing data in the analysis. Most of the papers excluded participants with missing data and performed a complete-case analysis (n = 54, 66%). Other papers used more sophisticated methods including multiple imputation (n = 5) or fully Bayesian modeling (n = 1). Methods known to produce biased results were also used, for example, Last Observation Carried Forward (n = 7), the missing indicator method (n = 1), and mean value substitution (n = 3). For the remaining 14 papers, the method used to handle missing data in the analysis was not stated. Conclusions: This review highlights the inconsistent reporting of missing data in cohort studies and the continuing use of inappropriate methods to handle missing data in the analysis. Epidemiological journals should invoke the STROBE guidelines as a framework for authors so that the amount of missing data and how this was accounted for in the analysis is transparent in the reporting of cohort studies. © 2012 Karahalios et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd