Estimating cross‐validatory predictive <i>p</i>‐values with integrated importance sampling for disease mapping models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important statistical task in disease mapping problems is to identify divergent regions with unusually high or low risk of disease. Leave-one-out cross-validatory (LOOCV) model assessment is the gold standard for estimating predictive p-values that can flag such divergent regions. However, actual LOOCV is time-consuming because one needs to rerun a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis for each posterior distribution in which an observation is held out as a test case. This paper introduces a new method, called integrated importance sampling (iIS), for estimating LOOCV predictive p-values with only Markov chain samples drawn from the posterior based on a full data set. The key step in iIS is that we integrate away the latent variables associated the test observation with respect to their conditional distribution without reference to the actual observation. By following the general theory for importance sampling, the formula used by iIS can be proved to be equivalent to the LOOCV predictive p-value. We compare iIS and other three existing methods in the literature with two disease mapping datasets. Our empirical results show that the predictive p-values estimated with iIS are almost identical to the predictive p-values estimated with actual LOOCV and outperform those given by the existing three methods, namely, the posterior predictive checking, the ordinary importance sampling, and the ghosting method by Marshall and Spiegelhalter (2003). Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.042 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".