Literature DB >> 11726013

Sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo risk analysis, and Bayesian uncertainty assessment.

S Greenland1.   

Abstract

Standard statistical methods understate the uncertainty one should attach to effect estimates obtained from observational data. Among the methods used to address this problem are sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo risk analysis (MCRA), and Bayesian uncertainty assessment. Estimates from MCRAs have been presented as if they were valid frequentist or Bayesian results, but examples show that they need not be either in actual applications. It is concluded that both sensitivity analyses and MCRA should begin with the same type of prior specification effort as Bayesian analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11726013     DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.214136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  26 in total

1.  Improving efficiency of uncertainty analysis in complex integrated assessment models: the case of the RAINS emission module.

Authors:  Silke Gabbert
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2006-06-02       Impact factor: 2.513

Review 2.  Methodology, design, and analytic techniques to address measurement of comorbid disease.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Vincent Mor; Darryl Wieland; Luigi Ferrucci; William Satariano; Rebecca A Silliman
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.053

3.  Estimating causal effects from observational data with a model for multiple bias.

Authors:  Michael Höfler; Roselind Lieb; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.035

4.  Effectiveness of oral bisphosphonates for primary prevention of osteoporotic fractures: evidence from the AIFA-BEST observational study.

Authors:  Arianna Ghirardi; Mauro Di Bari; Antonella Zambon; Lorenza Scotti; Gianluca Della Vedova; Francesco Lapi; Francesco Cipriani; Achille P Caputi; Alberto Vaccheri; Dario Gregori; Rosaria Gesuita; Annarita Vestri; Tommaso Staniscia; Giampiero Mazzaglia; Giovanni Corrao
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  On quantifying the magnitude of confounding.

Authors:  Holly Janes; Francesca Dominici; Scott Zeger
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-03-04       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Deconstructing the smoking-preeclampsia paradox through a counterfactual framework.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez; Helga Zoega; Unnur Valdimarsdottir; Michelle A Williams
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  Spatial analysis and health risk assessment of heavy metals concentration in drinking water resources.

Authors:  Reza Ali Fallahzadeh; Mohammad Taghi Ghaneian; Mohammad Miri; Mohamad Mehdi Dashti
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 8.  Probabilistic approaches to better quantifying the results of epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Paul Gustafson; Lawrence C McCandless
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Bayesian bias adjustments of the lung cancer SMR in a cohort of German carbon black production workers.

Authors:  Peter Morfeld; Robert J McCunney
Journal:  J Occup Med Toxicol       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 2.646

10.  Using lifetime risk estimates in personal genomic profiles: estimation of uncertainty.

Authors:  Quanhe Yang; W Dana Flanders; Ramal Moonesinghe; John P A Ioannidis; Idris Guessous; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 11.025

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.