ArticlePloS one2021
Bartlett-corrected tests for varying precision beta regressions with application to environmental biometrics.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
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
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.