Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38977791›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Comparison of WAIC and posterior predictive approaches for N-mixture models.

Heather E Gaya, Alison C Ketz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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

2 authors.

Heather E GayaWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA. heather.e.gaya@gmail.com.
Alison C KetzWisconsin Cooperative Research Unit, Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hierarchical models are common for ecological analysis, but determining appropriate model selection methods remains an ongoing challenge. To confront this challenge, a suitable method is needed to evaluate and compare available candidate models. We compared performance of conditional WAIC, a joint-likelihood approach to WAIC (WAICj), and posterior-predictive loss for selecting between candidate N-mixture models. We tested these model selection criteria on simulated single-season N-mixture models, simulated multi-season N-mixture models with temporal auto-correlation, and three case studies of single-season N-mixture models based on eBird data. WAICj proved more accurate than the standard conditional formulation or posterior-predictive loss, even when models were temporally correlated, suggesting WAICj is a robust alternative to model selection for N-mixture models.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAnimalsComputer SimulationLikelihood FunctionsSeasonsBayesianeBirdModel selectionN-mixturePosterior-predictive lossWAIC

Identifiers

PMID38977791
PMCPMC11231229

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.