ArticleBiometrika2020
Inference under unequal probability sampling with the Bayesian exponentially tilted empirical likelihood.
Article in Biometrika, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Constrained Reweighting of Distributions: An Optimal Transport Approach.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of spatial Bayesian Empirical Likelihood models in analysis of small area data.PloS one · 2022Article
- Inference under unequal probability sampling with the Bayesian exponentially tilted empirical likelihood.Biometrika · 2020Article
- A Bayesian Quantile Modeling for Spatiotemporal Relative Risk: An Application to Adverse Risk Detection of Respiratory Diseases in South Carolina, USA.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Bayesian computation via empirical likelihood.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013Article
- Semiparametric Approach to a Random Effects Quantile Regression Model.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2011Article
- Bayesian estimation methods for survey data with potential applications to health disparities research.Wiley interdisciplinary reviewsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Fully Bayesian inference in the presence of unequal probability sampling requires stronger structural assumptions on the data-generating distribution than frequentist semiparametric methods, but offers the potential for improved small-sample inference and convenient evidence synthesis. We demonstrate that the Bayesian exponentially tilted empirical likelihood can be used to combine the practical benefits of Bayesian inference with the robustness and attractive large-sample properties of frequentist approaches. Estimators defined as the solutions to unbiased estimating equations can be used to define a semiparametric model through the set of corresponding moment constraints. We prove Bernstein-von Mises theorems which show that the posterior constructed from the resulting exponentially tilted empirical likelihood becomes approximately normal, centred at the chosen estimator with matching asymptotic variance; thus, the posterior has properties analogous to those of the estimator, such as double robustness, and the frequentist coverage of any credible set will be approximately equal to its credibility. The proposed method can be used to obtain modified versions of existing estimators with improved properties, such as guarantees that the estimator lies within the parameter space. Unlike existing Bayesian proposals, our method does not prescribe a particular choice of prior or require posterior variance correction, and simulations suggest that it provides superior performance in terms of frequentist criteria.
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.