ReviewJournal of applied statistics2021
A comparison study on modeling of clustered and overdispersed count data for multiple comparisons.
Review in Journal of applied statistics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple Contrast Tests for Count Data: Small Sample Approximations and Their Limitations.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Responses of grassland soil mesofauna to induced climate change.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effect of resveratrol on the cryopreservation of Mongolian horse semen.Archives animal breeding · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of mRNA and lncRNA Expression Profiles in Testicular Tissue of Sexually Immature and Sexually Mature Mongolian Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Single-Cell Transcriptome Sequencing Reveals Molecular Expression Differences and Marker Genes in Testes during the Sexual Maturation of Mongolian Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Have restrictions on human mobility impacted suicide rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan?Psychiatry research · 2022Article
- Change point detection for clustered expression data.BMC genomics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data collected in various scientific fields are count data. One way to analyze such data is to compare the individual levels of the factor treatment using multiple comparisons. However, the measured individuals are often clustered - e.g. according to litter or rearing. This must be considered when estimating the parameters by a repeated measurement model. In addition, ignoring the overdispersion to which count data is prone leads to an increase of the type one error rate. We carry out simulation studies using several different data settings and compare different multiple contrast tests with parameter estimates from generalized estimation equations and generalized linear mixed models in order to observe coverage and rejection probabilities. We generate overdispersed, clustered count data in small samples as can be observed in many biological settings. We have found that the generalized estimation equations outperform generalized linear mixed models if the variance-sandwich estimator is correctly specified. Furthermore, generalized linear mixed models show problems with the convergence rate under certain data settings, but there are model implementations with lower implications exists. Finally, we use an example of genetic data to demonstrate the application of the multiple contrast test and the problems of ignoring strong overdispersion.
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.