Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37061082›Full record

ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2023

An investigation of non-informative priors for Bayesian dose-response modeling.

Matthew W Wheeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author.

Matthew W WheelerNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, 111 Tw Alexander Dr David P Rall Building Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. Electronic address: matt.wheeler@nih.gov.

Funding

Non-parametric Bayesian Method DevelopmentZIAES103357 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WHEELER, MATTHEW · 2020 to 2024
$546k
Dose-response Methods Development for High Throughput, Nontraditional, and Standard BioassaysZIAES103358 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WHEELER, MATTHEW · 2020 to 2024
$546k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES103357Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES103358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Toxicology analyses are built around dose-response modeling, and increasingly these methodologies utilize Bayesian estimation techniques. Bayesian estimation is unique because it includes prior distributional information in the analysis, which may impact the dose-response estimate meaningfully. As such analyses are often used for human health risk assessment, the practitioner must understand the impact of adding prior information to the dose-response study. One proposal in the literature is the use of the flat uniform prior distribution, which places a uniform prior probability over the dose-response model's parameters for a chosen range of values. Though the motivation of such a prior distribution is laudable in that it is most like maximum likelihood estimation seeking unbiased estimates of the dose-response, one can show that such priors add information and may introduce unexpected biases into the analysis. This manuscript shows through numerous empirical examples why prior distributions that are non-informative across all endpoints of interest do not exist for dose-response models; that is, other quantities of interest will be informed by choosing one inferential quantity not informed.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremBiasHumansRisk AssessmentConcentration responseNonlinear modelsToxicology experimentsUniform prior distributions

Identifiers

PMID37061082
PMCPMC10436774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.