Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39655005›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

Developing a Bayesian workshop for full-time staff statisticians.

Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Veera Baladandayuthapani, Niko Kaciroti, Eli Samuels, Jane Bugden, Cathie Spino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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

6 authors.

Shokoufeh KhalatbariThe Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6674-0763
Veera BaladandayuthapaniDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Niko KacirotiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Eli SamuelsThe Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-3382
Jane BugdenThe Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Cathie SpinoThe Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UM1TR004404 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Julie C Lumeng · 2023 to 2026
$39.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There are two main schools of thought about statistical inference: frequentist and Bayesian. The frequentist approach relies solely on available data for predictions, while the Bayesian approach incorporates both data and prior knowledge about the event of interest. Bayesian methods were developed hundreds of years ago; however, they were rarely used due to computational challenges and conflicts between the two schools of thought. Recent advances in computational capabilities and a shift toward leveraging prior knowledge for inferences have led to increased use of Bayesian methods. Methods: Many biostatisticians with expertise in frequentist approaches lack the skills to apply Bayesian techniques. To address this gap, four faculty experts in Bayesian modeling at the University of Michigan developed a practical, customized workshop series. The training, tailored to accommodate the schedules of full-time staff, focused on immersive, project-based learning rather than traditional lecture-based methods. Surveys were conducted to assess the impact of the program. Results: All 20 participants completed the program and when surveyed reported an increased understanding of Bayesian theory and greater confidence in using these techniques. Capstone projects demonstrated participants' ability to apply Bayesian methodology. The workshop not only enhanced the participants' skills but also positioned them to readily apply Bayesian techniques in their work. Conclusions: Accommodating the schedules of full-time biostatistical staff enabled full participation. The immersive project-based learning approach resulted in building skills and increasing confidence among staff statisticians who were unfamiliar with Bayesian methods and their practical applications.

Indexed as

Applied biostatistical sciences networkBayesian methodsClinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)course evaluationcustomized trainingMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)R programmingtranslational researchtranslational scienceworkforce development

Identifiers

PMID39655005
PMCPMC11626572

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.