Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34846675›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2022

Bayesian paired comparison with the bpcs package.

David Issa Mattos, Érika Martins Silva Ramos

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Is a standardised severity index needed in unicoronal craniosynostosis? Challenges in developing an objective metric.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David Issa MattosDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. issamattos.david@gmail.com.
Érika Martins Silva RamosDepartment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2501-9926
Chalmers University of Technology · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article introduces the bpcs R package (Bayesian Paired Comparison in Stan) and the statistical models implemented in the package. This package aims to facilitate the use of Bayesian models for paired comparison data in behavioral research. Bayesian analysis of paired comparison data allows parameter estimation even in conditions where the maximum likelihood does not exist, allows easy extension of paired comparison models, provides straightforward interpretation of the results with credible intervals, has better control of type I error, has more robust evidence towards the null hypothesis, allows propagation of uncertainties, includes prior information, and performs well when handling models with many parameters and latent variables. The bpcs package provides a consistent interface for R users and several functions to evaluate the posterior distribution of all parameters to estimate the posterior distribution of any contest between items and to obtain the posterior distribution of the ranks. Three reanalyses of recent studies that used the frequentist Bradley-Terry model are presented. These reanalyses are conducted with the Bayesian models of the bpcs package, and all the code used to fit the models, generate the figures, and the tables are available in the online appendix.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremHumansMatched-Pair AnalysisBayesian paired comparisonBradley-TerryDavidson

Identifiers

PMID34846675
PMCPMC9374650
OpenAlexW3216602291

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.