Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37969542›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied statistics2023

Penalized likelihood methods for modeling count data.

Minh Thu Bui, Cornelis J Potgieter, Akihito Kamata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Minh Thu BuiDepartment of Mathematics, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Cornelis J PotgieterDepartment of Mathematics, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1995-6817
Akihito KamataSimmons School of Education, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9570-1464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The paper considers parameter estimation in count data models using penalized likelihood methods. The motivating data consists of multiple independent count variables with a moderate sample size per variable. The data were collected during the assessment of oral reading fluency (ORF) in school-aged children. A sample of fourth-grade students were given one of ten available passages to read with these differing in length and difficulty. The observed number of words read incorrectly (WRI) is used to measure ORF. Three models are considered for WRI scores, namely the binomial, the zero-inflated binomial, and the beta-binomial. We aim to efficiently estimate passage difficulty, a quantity expressed as a function of the underlying model parameters. Two types of penalty functions are considered for penalized likelihood with respective goals of shrinking parameter estimates closer to zero or closer to one another. A simulation study evaluates the efficacy of the shrinkage estimates using Mean Square Error (MSE) as metric. Big reductions in MSE relative to unpenalized maximum likelihood are observed. The paper concludes with an analysis of the motivating ORF data.

Indexed as

62F1062P15Count data modelscross-validationempirical success probabilityparameter shrinkagepenalized maximum likelihood

Identifiers

PMID37969542
PMCPMC10631389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.