MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161992291 · doi:10.82308/13397

Application of Bayesian variable selection methods and shrinkage priors to epidemiological data

2023· dissertation· en· W7161992291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingyan Fu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrior probabilityBayesian probabilityFeature selectionFrequentist inferenceMissing dataBayes' theoremPosterior probabilitySelection (genetic algorithm)Variable (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First developed in the 1970s, variable selection plays a vital role in selecting the correct inclusion of variables in a prediction model. From forward selection to penalized regression, a great number of approaches have been constructed within the frequentist framework. More recently, Bayesian variable selection techniques have been developed and gained popularity because of their ability to learn from prior knowledge and construct credible intervals for the parameters without additional computations. However, the application of the Bayesian techniques on data with missingness or spatial information have been limited and the use of customizable programs such as JAGS and RStan are required.In this thesis, we provide a comprehensive review of some commonly-used variable selection methods, especially the Bayesian priors, and the comparisons of these methods from past literature. We then apply the regularized Horseshoe prior to two epidemiological datasets to investigate: (1) the random effect of health care regions and social-material deprivation on the treatment decision for patients with aortic stenosis, and (2) the correlations between epidemiological factors and HIV status obtained from a HIV self-testing arm survey. The shrinkage prior is first applied to the AS treatment dataset from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ). Spatial information is contained in postal codes and treated as random effects with 0-1 adjacency matrix. We then analyze the HIV data obtained from a quasi-randomized control trial to explore the risk factors of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status. With missing values, we apply a Bayesian hierarchical model for imputation and the shrinkage prior to drop irrelevant predictors. At last, we provide our code and offer ideas for future 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207