↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of multivariate longitudinal kidney function outcomes using generalized linear mixed models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analysis of multivariate longitudinal kidney function outcomes using generalized linear mixed models
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12967-015-0557-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miran A Jaffa, Mulugeta Gebregziabher, Ayad A Jaffa

Abstract

Renal transplant patients are mandated to have continuous assessment of their kidney function over time to monitor disease progression determined by changes in blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Cr), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Multivariate analysis of these outcomes that aims at identifying the differential factors that affect disease progression is of great clinical significance. Thus our study aims at demonstrating the application of different joint modeling approaches with random coefficients on a cohort of renal transplant patients and presenting a comparison of their performance through a pseudo-simulation study. The objective of this comparison is to identify the model with best performance and to determine whether accuracy compensates for complexity in the different multivariate joint models. We propose a novel application of multivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Models (mGLMM) to analyze multiple longitudinal kidney function outcomes collected over 3 years on a cohort of 110 renal transplantation patients. The correlated outcomes BUN, Cr, and eGFR and the effect of various covariates such patient's gender, age and race on these markers was determined holistically using different mGLMMs. The performance of the various mGLMMs that encompass shared random intercept (SHRI), shared random intercept and slope (SHRIS), separate random intercept (SPRI) and separate random intercept and slope (SPRIS) was assessed to identify the one that has the best fit and most accurate estimates. A bootstrap pseudo-simulation study was conducted to gauge the tradeoff between the complexity and accuracy of the models. Accuracy was determined using two measures; the mean of the differences between the estimates of the bootstrapped datasets and the true beta obtained from the application of each model on the renal dataset, and the mean of the square of these differences. The results showed that SPRI provided most accurate estimates and did not exhibit any computational or convergence problem. Higher accuracy was demonstrated when the level of complexity increased from shared random coefficient models to the separate random coefficient alternatives with SPRI showing to have the best fit and most accurate estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 25%
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Mathematics 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,228,602
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,780
of 3,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,322
of 264,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#56
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 264,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.