Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40589615›Full record

ArticleBiometrika2025

Bayesian inference for generalized linear models via quasi-posteriors.

D Agnoletto, T Rigon, D B Dunson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrika, 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

3 authors.

D AgnolettoDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, 214 Old Chemistry, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3067-0745
T RigonDepartment of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano 20126, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9224-543X
D B DunsonDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, 214 Old Chemistry, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA.

Funding

Structured nonparametric methods for mixtures of exposuresR01ES028804 · NIEHS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DUNSON, DAVID BRIAN · 2018 to 2021
$2.2M
Improving inferences on health effects of chemical exposuresR01ES035625 · NIEHS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI David Brian Dunson · 2023 to 2026
$1.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES028804NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES035625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generalized linear models are routinely used for modelling relationships between a response variable and a set of covariates. The simple form of a generalized linear model comes with easy interpretability, but also leads to concerns about model misspecification impacting inferential conclusions. A popular semiparametric solution adopted in the frequentist literature is quasilikelihood, which improves robustness by only requiring correct specification of the first two moments. We develop a robust approach to Bayesian inference in generalized linear models through quasi-posterior distributions. We show that quasi-posteriors provide a coherent generalized Bayes inference method, while also approximating so-called coarsened posteriors. In so doing, we obtain new insights into the choice of coarsening parameter. Asymptotically, the quasi-posterior converges in total variation to a normal distribution and has important connections with the loss-likelihood bootstrap posterior. We demonstrate that it is also well calibrated in terms of frequentist coverage. Moreover, the loss-scale parameter has a clear interpretation as a dispersion, and this leads to a consolidated method-of-moments estimator.

Indexed as

C-BayesGeneralized BayesModel misspecificationQuasilikelihoodRobustness

Identifiers

PMID40589615
PMCPMC12206450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.