Estimation in Bayesian Disease Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on Bayesian inference of disease mapping models discusses the advantages of the fully Bayesian (FB) approach over its empirical Bayes (EB) counterpart, suggesting that FB posterior standard deviations of small-area relative risks are more reflective of the uncertainty associated with the relative risk estimation than counterparts based on EB inference, since the latter fail to account for the variability in the estimation of the hyperparameters. In this article, an EB bootstrap methodology for relative risk inference with accurate parametric EB confidence intervals is developed, illustrated, and contrasted with the hyperprior Bayes. We elucidate the close connection between the EB bootstrap methodology and hyperprior Bayes, present a comparison between FB inference via hybrid Markov chain Monte Carlo and EB inference via penalized quasi-likelihood, and illustrate the ability of parametric bootstrap procedures to adjust for the undercoverage in the "naive" EB interval estimates. We discuss the important roles that FB and EB methods play in risk inference, map interpretation, and real-life applications. The work is motivated by a recent analysis of small-area infant mortality rates in the province of British Columbia in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".