Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39588976›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Parameterization of Beta Distributions for Bias Parameters of Binary Exposure Misclassification in Probabilistic Bias Analysis.

Qi Zhang, Richard F MacLehose, Lindsay J Collin, Thomas P Ahern, Timothy L Lash

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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

5 authors.

Qi ZhangFrom the Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.ORCID 0000-0002-1969-8512
Richard F MacLehoseDivision of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lindsay J CollinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Thomas P AhernDepartments of Surgery of Biochemistry, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Timothy L LashFrom the Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

Improving Reproducibility by Incorporating UncertaintyR01LM013049 · NLM · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI LASH, TIMOTHY L. · 2019 to 2022
$1.1M
Identifying factors associated with ovarian cancer recurrence using a population-based approachK99CA277580 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI COLLIN, LINDSAY JANE · 2023 to 2024
$279k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA277580NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo account for misclassification of dichotomous variables using probabilistic bias analysis, beta distributions are often assigned to bias parameters (e.g., positive and negative predictive values) based on data from an internal validation substudy. Due to the small sample size of validation substudies, zero-cell frequencies can occur. In these scenarios, it may be helpful to assign prior distributions or apply continuity corrections to the predictive value estimates.

methodsWe simulated cohort studies of varying sizes, with a binary exposure and outcome and a true risk ratio (RR) = 2.0, as well as internal validation substudies, to account for exposure misclassification. We conducted bias adjustment under five approaches assigning prior distributions to the positive and negative predictive value parameters: (1) conventional method (i.e., no prior), (2) uniform prior beta ( α = 1, β = 1), (3) Jeffreys prior beta ( α = 0.5, β = 0.5), (4) using Jeffreys prior as a continuity correction only when zero cells occurred, and (5) using the uniform prior as a continuity correction only when zero cells occurred. We evaluated performance by measuring coverage probability, bias, and mean squared error.

resultsFor sparse validation data, methods (2)-(5) all had better coverage and lower mean squared error than the conventional method, with the uniform prior (2) yielding the best performance. However, little difference between methods was observed when the validation substudy did not contain zero cells.

conclusionIf sparse data are expected in a validation substudy, using a uniform prior for the beta distribution of bias parameters can improve the validity of bias-adjusted measures.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBiasCohort StudiesComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansProbability

Identifiers

PMID39588976
PMCPMC11785477

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.