Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39851689›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Reporting Standards for Bayesian Network Modelling.

Martine J Barons, Anca M Hanea, Steven Mascaro, Owen Woodberry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Martine J BaronsDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1483-2943
Anca M HaneaCentre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3870-5949
Steven MascaroBayesian Intelligence, Upwey, VIC 3158, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8527-3643
Owen WoodberryBayesian Intelligence, Upwey, VIC 3158, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-0831-2707

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproducibility is a key measure of the veracity of a modelling result or finding. In other research areas, notably in medicine, reproducibility is supported by mandating the inclusion of an agreed set of details into every research publication, facilitating systematic reviews, transparency and reproducibility. Governments and international organisations are increasingly turning to modelling approaches in the development and decision-making for policy and have begun asking questions about accountability in model-based decision making. The ethical issues of relying on modelling that is biased, poorly constructed, constrained by heroic assumptions and not reproducible are multiplied when such models are used to underpin decisions impacting human and planetary well-being. Bayesian Network modelling is used in policy development and decision support across a wide range of domains. In light of the recent trend for governments and other organisations to demand accountability and transparency, we have compiled and tested a reporting checklist for Bayesian Network modelling which will bring the desirable level of transparency and reproducibility to enable models to support decision making and allow the robust comparison and combination of models. The use of this checklist would support the ethical use of Bayesian network modelling for impactful decision making and research.

Indexed as

Bayesian networksdecision supportpolicyreporting standardsreproducibilitysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39851689
PMCPMC11765109

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.