ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2020
Finite Mixture Models with Student t Distributions: an Applied Example.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of finite mixture models to explore subpopulations in Crohn's disease patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Trajectories of craving during medication-assisted treatment for opioid-use disorder: Subtyping for early identification of higher risk.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The use of finite mixture modeling (FMM) to identify unobservable or latent groupings of individuals within a population has increased rapidly in applied prevention research. However, many prevention scientists are still unaware of the statistical assumptions underlying FMM. In particular, finite mixture models (FMMs) typically assume that the observed indicator variables are normally distributed within each latent subgroup (i.e., within-class normality). These assumptions are rarely met in applied psychological and prevention research, and violating these assumptions when fitting a FMM can lead to the identification of spurious subgroups and/or biased parameter estimates. Although new methods have been developed that relax the within-class normality assumption when fitting a FMM, prevention scientists continue to rely on FMM methods that assume within-class normality. The purpose of the current article is to introduce prevention researchers to a FMM method for heavy-tailed data: FMM with Student t distributions. We begin by reviewing the distributional assumptions that underlie FMM and the limitations of FMM with normal distributions. Next, we introduce FMM with Student t distributions, and show, step by step, the analytic and substantive results of fitting a FMM with normal and Student t distributions to data from a smoking-cessation trial. Finally, we extend the results of the applied example to draw conclusions about the use of FMM with Student t distributions in applied settings and to provide guidelines for researchers who wish to use these methods in their own research.
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.