Bayesian unanchored additive models for component network meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Component network meta-analysis (CNMA) models are an extension of standard network meta-analysis (NMA) models which account for the use of multicomponent treatments in the network. This article contributes innovatively to several statistical aspects of CNMA. First, by introducing a unified notation, we establish that currently available methods differ in the way they assume additivity, an important distinction that has been overlooked so far in the literature. In particular, one model uses a more restrictive form of additivity than the other which we term an anchored and unanchored model, respectively. We show that an anchored model can provide a poor fit to the data if it is misspecified. Second, given that Bayesian models are often preferred by practitioners, we develop two novel unanchored Bayesian CNMA models presented under the unified notation. An extensive simulation study examining bias, coverage probabilities, and treatment rankings confirms the favorable performance of the novel models. This is the first simulation study to compare the statistical properties of CNMA models in the literature. Finally, the use of our novel models is demonstrated on a real dataset, and the results of CNMA models on the dataset are compared.
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 | 0.053 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".