Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40458477›Full record

ArticleApplied network science2025

Influence of multiple network structures on bayesian estimation of peer effects and statistical power for generalized linear network autocorrelation models.

Guanqing Chen, A James O'Malley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied network science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Guanqing ChenDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02215 MA US.
A James O'MalleyThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, 03756 NH US.ORCID 0000-0001-8389-6217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent published literature on linear network autocorrelation models of actor behaviors or other mutable attributes has revealed a curious finding. Irrespective of the size of the network and the status of other network features, likelihood-based estimators (e.g., maximum likelihood and Bayesian) of the autocorrelation parameter ([Formula: see text]) are negatively biased and become increasingly so as the density of the network increases. In this paper we investigate the pattern of bias of estimators of [Formula: see text] when analyzing multiple mutually exclusive sub-networks and directed networks with various levels of reciprocity. In addition to considering the case of a linear network autocorrelation model applied to a binary-valued network, the edges may be weighted and the attribute whose actor-interdependence (or peer-effect) we are interested in may be an event (i.e., a binary outcome), a count, or a rate outcome motivating the use of generalized linear network autocorrelation models. We perform a simulation study that reveals that bias reduces substantially as either the number of sub-networks increases or with increased variation across the network in the edge weights but this pattern is not observed with reciprocity. The findings for generalized linear network autocorrelation models are in general similar to those for linear network autocorrelation models. Finally, we perform a statistical power analysis based on these findings for use in designing future studies whose goal is to estimate or to detect peer-effects.

Indexed as

Bayesian inferenceNetwork autocorrelation model for continuous and non-continuous outcomesPower analysisSub-networksWeighted-edge network

Identifiers

PMID40458477
PMCPMC12126333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.