Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40566166›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Approaches for Reducing Expert Burden in Bayesian Network Parameterization.

Bodille P M Blomaard, Gabriela F Nane, Anca M Hanea

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 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

3 authors.

Bodille P M BlomaardDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands.
Gabriela F NaneDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3614-1820
Anca M HaneaCentre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3870-5949

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bayesian networksexpert judgmentfunctional interpolationInterBetaRNM

Identifiers

PMID40566166
PMCPMC12192095

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.