Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36126077›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Beta distribution misspecification tests with application to Covid-19 mortality rates in the United States.

José Jairo Santana-E-Silva, Francisco Cribari-Neto, Klaus L P Vasconcellos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

José Jairo Santana-E-SilvaDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.
Francisco Cribari-NetoDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5909-6698
Klaus L P VasconcellosDepartamento de Estatística, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The beta distribution is routinely used to model variables that assume values in the standard unit interval, (0, 1). Several alternative laws have, nonetheless, been proposed in the literature, such as the Kumaraswamy and simplex distributions. A natural and empirically motivated question is: does the beta law provide an adequate representation for a given dataset? We test the null hypothesis that the beta model is correctly specified against the alternative hypothesis that it does not provide an adequate data fit. Our tests are based on the information matrix equality, which only holds when the model is correctly specified. They are thus sensitive to model misspecification. Simulation evidence shows that the tests perform well, especially when coupled with bootstrap resampling. We model state and county Covid-19 mortality rates in the United States. The misspecification tests indicate that the beta law successfully represents Covid-19 death rates when they are computed using either data from prior to the start of the vaccination campaign or data collected when such a campaign was under way. In the latter case, the beta law is only accepted when the negative impact of vaccination reach on death rates is moderate. The beta model is rejected under data heterogeneity, i.e., when mortality rates are computed using information gathered during both time periods.

Indexed as

COVID-19Computer SimulationHumansStatistical DistributionsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36126077
PMCPMC9488837

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.