Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28163973›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2016

How to interpret the results of medical time series data analysis: Classical statistical approaches versus dynamic Bayesian network modeling.

Agnieszka Onisko, Marek J Druzdzel, R Marshall Austin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

3 authors.

Agnieszka OniskoDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA; Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland.
Marek J DruzdzelFaculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland; Decision Systems Laboratory, School of Information Sciences and Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.
R Marshall AustinDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClassical statistics is a well-established approach in the analysis of medical data. While the medical community seems to be familiar with the concept of a statistical analysis and its interpretation, the Bayesian approach, argued by many of its proponents to be superior to the classical frequentist approach, is still not well-recognized in the analysis of medical data.

aimThe goal of this study is to encourage data analysts to use the Bayesian approach, such as modeling with graphical probabilistic networks, as an insightful alternative to classical statistical analysis of medical data. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis paper offers a comparison of two approaches to analysis of medical time series data: (1) classical statistical approach, such as the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the Cox proportional hazards regression model, and (2) dynamic Bayesian network modeling. Our comparison is based on time series cervical cancer screening data collected at Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center over 10 years.

resultsThe main outcomes of our comparison are cervical cancer risk assessments produced by the three approaches. However, our analysis discusses also several aspects of the comparison, such as modeling assumptions, model building, dealing with incomplete data, individualized risk assessment, results interpretation, and model validation.

conclusionOur study shows that the Bayesian approach is (1) much more flexible in terms of modeling effort, and (2) it offers an individualized risk assessment, which is more cumbersome for classical statistical approaches.

Indexed as

Cervical cancer screeningCox proportional hazards regression modeldynamic Bayesian networksKaplan–Meier estimatortime series data

Identifiers

PMID28163973
PMCPMC5248402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.