Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23886677›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2015

Calibration of complex models through Bayesian evidence synthesis: a demonstration and tutorial.

Christopher H Jackson, Mark Jit, Linda D Sharples, Daniela De Angelis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Extrapolating Survival from Randomized Trials Using External Data: A Review of Methods.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017
    Review
  18. Validation of Models Used to Inform Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines: Accuracy and Implications.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2016
    Article
  19. Validation Is Necessary but Insufficient.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher H JacksonMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK (CHJ, LDS, DD)
Mark JitHealth Protection Agency, London, UK (MJ)
Linda D SharplesMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK (CHJ, LDS, DD)
Daniela De AngelisMRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK (CHJ, LDS, DD)

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105232027Medical Research Council MC_U105260556Medical Research Council U015232027Medical Research Council U105260566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-analytic models must often be informed using data that are only indirectly related to the main model parameters. The authors outline how to implement a Bayesian synthesis of diverse sources of evidence to calibrate the parameters of a complex model. A graphical model is built to represent how observed data are generated from statistical models with unknown parameters and how those parameters are related to quantities of interest for decision making. This forms the basis of an algorithm to estimate a posterior probability distribution, which represents the updated state of evidence for all unknowns given all data and prior beliefs. This process calibrates the quantities of interest against data and, at the same time, propagates all parameter uncertainties to the results used for decision making. To illustrate these methods, the authors demonstrate how a previously developed Markov model for the progression of human papillomavirus (HPV-16) infection was rebuilt in a Bayesian framework. Transition probabilities between states of disease severity are inferred indirectly from cross-sectional observations of prevalence of HPV-16 and HPV-16-related disease by age, cervical cancer incidence, and other published information. Previously, a discrete collection of plausible scenarios was identified but with no further indication of which of these are more plausible. Instead, the authors derive a Bayesian posterior distribution, in which scenarios are implicitly weighted according to how well they are supported by the data. In particular, we emphasize the appropriate choice of prior distributions and checking and comparison of fitted models.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremDecision Support TechniquesModels, StatisticalAlgorithmsComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16HumansMarkov ChainsPapillomavirus InfectionsProbabilityRegistriesUnited KingdomUterine Cervical NeoplasmsMarkov modelsmultiparameter evidence synthesisprobabilistic sensitivity analysissimulation methods

Identifiers

PMID23886677
PMCPMC4847637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.