Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030414›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2025

A Latent Variable Model for Individual Degree Measures in Respondent-Driven Sampling.

Yibo Wang, Sunghee Lee, Michael R Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 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

3 authors.

Yibo WangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.
Sunghee LeeInstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.
Michael R ElliottDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA.

Funding

Improving Reproducibility of Respondent Driven Sampling through Adaptive Design - Diversity SupplementR01AG060936 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LEE, SUNG-HEE · 2019 to 2023
$2.2M
Exploring Design Aspects of Web-Based Respondent-Driven Sampling for Racial/Ethnic MinoritiesR21AG062844 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LEE, SUNG-HEE · 2019 to 2020
$429k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG060936NIA NIH HHS R21 AG062844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is widely used to collect data from hidden populations in social and biomedical science. Although RDS may provide comprehensive coverage of the target hidden population through social network recruitment, its non-random sampling process poses challenges for generalizing findings beyond the sample. Current analytical methods rely on the network size (degree) reported by respondents to adjust for unequal sampling probabilities. However, the accuracy of the reported degree is questionable due to reporting errors, evidenced through an unusual frequency of multiples of five and improbably large values. To address this measurement error, we leverage a byproduct of the RDS process (e.g., respondents' recruitment patterns) and develop a novel degree estimator based on a latent variable model of the true degree that accounts for response errors via a reporting mechanism and incorporates recruitment information and external demographic profiles. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through a case study and a simulation study, which shows accurate and reliable degree estimates leading to significant improvements in population parameter estimation.

Indexed as

heapingmeasurement errornetwork sizesocial network

Identifiers

PMID41030414
PMCPMC12478524

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.