The consequences of checking for zero‐inflation and overdispersion in the analysis of count data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Count data are ubiquitous in ecology and the Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) is commonly used to model the association between counts and explanatory variables of interest. When fitting this model to the data, one typically proceeds by first confirming that the model assumptions are satisfied. If the residuals appear to be overdispersed or if there is zero‐inflation, key assumptions of the Poison GLM may be violated and researchers will then typically consider alternatives to the Poison GLM. An important question is whether the potential model selection bias introduced by this data‐driven multi‐stage procedure merits concern. Here we conduct a large‐scale simulation study to investigate the potential consequences of model selection bias that can arise in the simple scenario of analysing a sample of potentially overdispersed, potentially zero‐inflated, count data. Specifically, we investigate model selection procedures recently recommended by Blasco‐Moreno et al. (2019) using either a series of score tests or information theoretic criteria to select the best model. We find that, when sample sizes are small, model selection based on preliminary score tests (or information theoretic criteria, e.g. AIC, BIC) can lead to potentially substantial inflation of false positive rates (i.e. type 1 error inflation). When sample sizes are sufficiently large, model selection based on preliminary score tests, is not problematic. Ignoring the possibility of overdispersion and zero‐inflation during data analyses can lead to invalid inference. However, if one does not have sufficient power to test for overdispersion and zero‐inflation, post hoc model selection may also lead to substantial bias. This ‘catch‐22’ suggests that, if sample sizes are small, a healthy skepticism is warranted whenever one rejects the null hypothesis of no association between a given outcome and covariate.
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 | 0.255 | 0.691 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".