ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Approaches for Reducing Expert Burden in Bayesian Network Parameterization.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bayesian networks (BNs) are popular models that represent complex relationships among variables. In the discrete case, these relationships can be quantified by conditional probability tables (CPTs). CPTs can be derived from data, but if data are not sufficient, experts can be involved to assess the probabilities in the CPTs through Structured Expert Judgment (SEJ). This is often a burdensome task due to the large number of probabilities that need to be assessed and the structured protocols that need to be followed. To lighten the elicitation burden, several methods have previously been developed to construct CPTs using a limited number of input parameters, such as InterBeta, the Ranked Nodes Method (RNM), and Functional Interpolation. In this study, the burden/accuracy trade-off of InterBeta is researched by applying the method to reconstruct previously elicited CPTs and simulated CPTs, first by comparing these CPTs to ones constructed using RNM and Functional Interpolation. After that, InterBeta extensions are proposed and tested, including an extra mean function (shifted geometric mean), the elicitation of additional middle rows, and the newly proposed extension ExtraBeta. InterBeta with parent weights is found to be the best-performing method, and the ExtraBeta extension is found to be promising and is proposed for further exploration.
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.