MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413876715 · doi:10.6000/1929-6029.2025.14.47

Bayesian Estimation for Factor Analysis Model in Geriatric Medicine

2025· article· en· W4413876715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. Amirtha Rani Jagulin, A. Venmani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimationBayesian probabilityFactor (programming language)Computer scienceBayes estimatorStatisticsArtificial intelligenceEconometricsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bayesian factor analysis has gained prominence in statistical MODELING, particularly in handling parameter uncertainty and small sample sizes. This study presents a Metropolis- Hastings within Gibbs sampling algorithm for estimating a factor analysis model, incorporating Cauchy priors for factor loadings and log-normal priors for residual errors. Unlike traditional approaches, the proposed methodology effectively addresses heavy-tailed distributions in factor loadings and captures the skewness in residual variances. A geriatric dataset comprising 25 items related to locomotive function is used to illustrate the implementation of this Bayesian framework. Model fit is assessed using standard fit indices such as Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). The results demonstrate that incorporating non-conjugate priors improves model flexibility and enhances interpretability in factor structure identification. The findings suggest that Cauchy and log-normal priors outperform conventional normal priors in capturing latent structures, providing a robust alternative for Bayesian factor analysis in geriatric research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207