Literature DB >> 12205699

Likelihood methods for measuring statistical evidence.

Jeffrey D Blume1.   

Abstract

Focused on interpreting data as statistical evidence, the evidential paradigm uses likelihood ratios to measure the strength of statistical evidence. Under this paradigm, re-examination of accumulating evidence is encouraged because (i) the likelihood ratio, unlike a p-value, is unaffected by the number of examinations and (ii) the probability of observing strong misleading evidence is naturally low, even for study designs that re-examine the data with each new observation. Further, the controllable probabilities of observing misleading and weak evidence provide assurance that the study design is reliable without affecting the strength of statistical evidence in the data. This paper illustrates the ideas and methods associated with using likelihood ratios to measure statistical evidence. It contains a comprehensive introduction to the evidential paradigm, including an overview of how to quantify the probability of observing misleading evidence for various study designs. The University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), a classic and still controversial multi-centred clinical trial, is used as an illustrative example. Some of the original UGDP results, and subsequent re-analyses, are presented for comparison purposes. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12205699     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1216

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


  30 in total

1.  Profile Likelihood and Incomplete Data.

Authors:  Zhiwei Zhang
Journal:  Int Stat Rev       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 2.217

2.  Calculation method for likelihood ratios dictates interpretation.

Authors:  Alecia Larew Naugle; William P Shulaw; William J A Saville; Thomas E Wittum; Beverly Byrum
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  2003-07

3.  Using parametric multipoint lods and mods for linkage analysis requires a shift in statistical thinking.

Authors:  Susan E Hodge; Zeynep Baskurt; Lisa J Strug
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 0.444

4.  Simultaneous control of error rates in fMRI data analysis.

Authors:  Hakmook Kang; Jeffrey Blume; Hernando Ombao; David Badre
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 5.  Repeated looks at accumulating data: to correct or not to correct?

Authors:  Ingeborg van der Tweel
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

6.  A Bayesian hierarchical framework for spatial modeling of fMRI data.

Authors:  F DuBois Bowman; Brian Caffo; Susan Spear Bassett; Clinton Kilts
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2007-08-24       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Practical Marginalized Multilevel Models.

Authors:  Michael E Griswold; Bruce J Swihart; Brian S Caffo; Scott L Zeger
Journal:  Stat       Date:  2013

8.  Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence.

Authors:  Felix D Schönbrodt; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

9.  Centrotemporal sharp wave EEG trait in rolandic epilepsy maps to Elongator Protein Complex 4 (ELP4).

Authors:  Lisa J Strug; Tara Clarke; Theodore Chiang; Minchen Chien; Zeynep Baskurt; Weili Li; Ruslan Dorfman; Bhavna Bali; Elaine Wirrell; Steven L Kugler; David E Mandelbaum; Steven M Wolf; Patricia McGoldrick; Huntley Hardison; Edward J Novotny; Jingyue Ju; David A Greenberg; James J Russo; Deb K Pal
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Spatial effects should be allowed for in primary care and other community-based cluster RCTS.

Authors:  Paul Silcocks; Denise Kendrick
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.