ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2016
How to interpret the results of medical time series data analysis: Classical statistical approaches versus dynamic Bayesian network modeling.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forecasting Subjective Cognitive Decline: AI Approach Using Dynamic Bayesian Networks.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Probabilistic graphical modelling using Bayesian networks for predicting clinical outcome after posterior decompression in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- A causal learning framework for the analysis and interpretation of COVID-19 clinical data.PloS one · 2022Review
- Study on the Prediction Method of Long-term Benign and Malignant Pulmonary Lesions Based on LSTM.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Individualized Bayesian Risk Assessment for Cervical Squamous Neoplasia.Journal of pathology informatics · 2020Article
- Cell therapy trials for heart regeneration - lessons learned and future directions.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2018Review
- Are CIN3 risk or CIN3+ risk measures reliable surrogates for invasive cervical cancer risk?Journal of the American Society of CytopathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.