ArticlePloS one2025
Data-driven prior elicitation for Bayes factors in Cox regression for nine subfields in biomedicine.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research often utilizes Cox regression for the analysis of time-to-event data. The pervasive use of frequentist inference for these analyses implicates that the evidence for or against the presence (or absence) of an effect cannot be directly compared and that researchers must adhere to a predefined sampling plan. As an alternative, the use of Bayes factors improves upon these limitations, which is especially important for costly and time-consuming biomedical studies. However, Bayes factors involve their own difficulty of specifying priors for the parameters of the statistical model. In this article, we develop data-driven priors centered around zero for Cox regression tailored to nine subfields in biomedicine. To this end, we extracted hazard ratios and associated [Formula: see text] confidence intervals from the abstracts of large corpora of already existing studies within the nine biomedical subfields. We used these extracted data to inform priors for the nine subfields. All of our suggested priors are Normal distributions with means of 0 and standard deviations closely scattered around 1. We propose that researchers use these priors as reasonable starting points for their analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.