Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34146433›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2022

BARD: A Structured Technique for Group Elicitation of Bayesian Networks to Support Analytic Reasoning.

Erik P Nyberg, Ann E Nicholson, Kevin B Korb, Michael Wybrow, Ingrid Zukerman, Steven Mascaro, Shreshth Thakur, Abraham Oshni Alvandi, Jeff Riley, Ross Pearson and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Structured Expert Elicitation of Dependence Between River Tributaries Using Nonparametric Bayesian Networks.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  2. Reporting Standards for Bayesian Network Modelling.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Widening Access to Bayesian Problem Solving.Frontiers in psychology · 2020
    Article
  8. 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

16 authors.

Erik P NybergDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Ann E NicholsonDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Kevin B KorbDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael WybrowDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Ingrid ZukermanDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Steven MascaroBayesian Intelligence Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.
Shreshth ThakurDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abraham Oshni AlvandiDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jeff RileyDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Ross PearsonDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Shane MorrisAutomatic Studio Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.
Matthieu HerrmannDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
A K M AzadDepartment of Data Science & AI, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Fergus BolgerStrathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Ulrike HahnDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
David LagnadoDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many complex, real-world situations, problem solving and decision making require effective reasoning about causation and uncertainty. However, human reasoning in these cases is prone to confusion and error. Bayesian networks (BNs) are an artificial intelligence technology that models uncertain situations, supporting better probabilistic and causal reasoning and decision making. However, to date, BN methodologies and software require (but do not include) substantial upfront training, do not provide much guidance on either the model building process or on using the model for reasoning and reporting, and provide no support for building BNs collaboratively. Here, we contribute a detailed description and motivation for our new methodology and application, Bayesian ARgumentation via Delphi (BARD). BARD utilizes BNs and addresses these shortcomings by integrating (1) short, high-quality e-courses, tips, and help on demand; (2) a stepwise, iterative, and incremental BN construction process; (3) report templates and an automated explanation tool; and (4) a multiuser web-based software platform and Delphi-style social processes. The result is an end-to-end online platform, with associated online training, for groups without prior BN expertise to understand and analyze a problem, build a model of its underlying probabilistic causal structure, validate and reason with the causal model, and (optionally) use it to produce a written analytic report. Initial experiments demonstrate that, for suitable problems, BARD aids in reasoning and reporting. Comparing their effect sizes also suggests BARD's BN-building and collaboration combine beneficially and cumulatively.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSoftwareBayes TheoremHumansProblem SolvingUncertaintyDelphi processprobabilistic graphical modelsprobabilistic reasoning

Identifiers

PMID34146433
PMCPMC9290058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.