Literature DB >> 10474155

Innovations in bayes and empirical bayes methods: estimating parameters, populations and ranks.

T A Louis1, W Shen.   

Abstract

By formalizing the relation among components and 'borrowing information' among them, Bayes and empirical Bayes methods can produce more valid, efficient and informative statistical evaluations than those based on traditional methods. In addition, Bayesian structuring of complicated models and goals guides development of appropriate statistical approaches and generates summaries which properly account for sampling and modelling uncertainty. Computing innovations enable implementation of complex and relevant models, thereby substantially increasing the role of Bayes/empirical Bayes methods in important statistical assessments. Policy-relevant statistical assessments involve synthesis of information from a set of related components such as medical clinics, geographic regions or research studies. Typical assessments include inference for individual parameters, synthesis over the collection of components (for example, the parameter histogram) and comparisons among parameters (for example, ranks). The relative importance of these goals depends on the context. Bayesian structuring provides a guide to valid inference. For example, while posterior means are the 'obvious' and optimal estimates for individual components under squared error loss, their empirical distribution function (EDF) is underdispersed and never valid for estimating the EDF of the true, underlying parameters. Effective histogram estimates result from optimizing a loss function based in a distance between the histogram and its estimate. Similarly, ranking observed data usually produces poor estimates and ranking posterior means can be inappropriate. Effective estimates should be based on a loss function that caters directly to ranks. Using examples of 'borrowing information', shrinkage and the variance/bias trade-off we motivate Bayes and empirical Bayes analysis. Then, we outline the formal approach and discuss 'triple-goal' estimates with values that when ranked produce optimal ranks, for which the EDF is an optimal estimate of the parameter EDF and such that the values themselves are effective estimates of co-ordinate-specific parameters. We use basic models and data analysis examples to highlight the conceptual and structural issues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10474155     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990915/30)18:17/18<2493::aid-sim271>3.0.co;2-s

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  11 in total

1.  Empirical Bayes estimation of gene-specific effects in micro-array research.

Authors:  Jode W Edwards; Grier P Page; Gary Gadbury; Moonseong Heo; Tsuyoshi Kayo; Richard Weindruch; David B Allison
Journal:  Funct Integr Genomics       Date:  2004-09-29       Impact factor: 3.410

Review 2.  Bayesian methods in reporting and managing Australian clinical indicators.

Authors:  Peter P Howley; Stephen J Hancock; Robert W Gibberd; Sheuwen Chuang; Frank A Tuyl
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 1.337

3.  Measuring under-five mortality: validation of new low-cost methods.

Authors:  Julie Knoll Rajaratnam; Linda N Tran; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  Estimating the empirical Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient in the presence of error with nested data.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Venkatraman E Seshan; Elyn R Riedel; Colin B Begg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-07-20       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Ranking USRDS provider specific SMRs from 1998-2001.

Authors:  Rongheng Lin; Thomas A Louis; Susan M Paddock; Greg Ridgeway
Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol       Date:  2009-03-01

6.  Hierarchical Rank Aggregation with Applications to Nanotoxicology.

Authors:  Trina Patel; Donatello Telesca; Robert Rallo; Saji George; Tian Xia; André E Nel
Journal:  J Agric Biol Environ Stat       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 1.524

7.  Individualized treatment effects with censored data via fully nonparametric Bayesian accelerated failure time models.

Authors:  Nicholas C Henderson; Thomas A Louis; Gary L Rosner; Ravi Varadhan
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

8.  Improving quality indicator report cards through Bayesian modeling.

Authors:  Byron J Gajewski; Jonathan D Mahnken; Nancy Dunton
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-11-18       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Estimation of renal cell carcinoma treatment effects from disease progression modeling.

Authors:  M L Maitland; K Wu; M R Sharma; Y Jin; S P Kang; W M Stadler; T G Karrison; M J Ratain; R R Bies
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 6.875

10.  Hospital size, uncertainty, and pay-for-performance.

Authors:  Gestur Davidson; Ira Moscovice; Denise Remus
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2007
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.