Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34181678›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Bartlett-corrected tests for varying precision beta regressions with application to environmental biometrics.

Ana C Guedes, Francisco Cribari-Neto, Patrícia L Espinheira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ana C GuedesDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Francisco Cribari-NetoDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Patrícia L EspinheiraDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9150-8330

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beta regressions are commonly used with responses that assume values in the standard unit interval, such as rates, proportions and concentration indices. Hypothesis testing inferences on the model parameters are typically performed using the likelihood ratio test. It delivers accurate inferences when the sample size is large, but can otherwise lead to unreliable conclusions. It is thus important to develop alternative tests with superior finite sample behavior. We derive the Bartlett correction to the likelihood ratio test under the more general formulation of the beta regression model, i.e. under varying precision. The model contains two submodels, one for the mean response and a separate one for the precision parameter. Our interest lies in performing testing inferences on the parameters that index both submodels. We use three Bartlett-corrected likelihood ratio test statistics that are expected to yield superior performance when the sample size is small. We present Monte Carlo simulation evidence on the finite sample behavior of the Bartlett-corrected tests relative to the standard likelihood ratio test and to two improved tests that are based on an alternative approach. The numerical evidence shows that one of the Bartlett-corrected typically delivers accurate inferences even when the sample is quite small. An empirical application related to behavioral biometrics is presented and discussed.

Indexed as

BiometryComputer SimulationModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalData Interpretation, StatisticalSample Size

Identifiers

PMID34181678
PMCPMC8238208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.