Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41214235›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Correcting for selection bias after conditioning on a sum score in the Ising model.

Jesse Boot, Jill de Ron, Jonas Haslbeck, Sacha Epskamp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 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

4 authors.

Jesse BootDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.boot@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3235-9344
Jill de RonDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jonas HaslbeckDepartment of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sacha EpskampDepartment of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In psychological studies, it is common practice to select a sample based on the sum score of the modeled variables (e.g., based on symptom severity when investigating the associations between those same symptoms). However, this practice introduces bias if the sum score selection imperfectly defines the population of interest. Here, we propose a correction for this type of selection bias in the Ising model, a popular network model for binary data. Possible applications of our correction are when one wants to obtain (1) full population estimates when only the sum score subset of the data is available, and (2) improved estimates of a subpopulation, if we observe a mixture of populations that differ from each other in the sum score. In a simulation study, we verify that our correction recovers the network structure of the desired population after a sum score selection using both a node-wise regression and a multivariate estimation of the Ising model. In an example, we show how our correction can be used in practice using empirical data on symptoms of major depression from the National Comorbidity Study Replication (N = 9,282). We implemented our correction in four commonly used R packages for estimating the Ising model, namely IsingFit, IsingSampler, psychonetrics, and bootnet.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationHopfield Neural NetworksHumansMajor Depressive DisorderSelection BiasBerkson’s biasIsing modelSelection biasSum score selection

Identifiers

PMID41214235
PMCPMC12602587

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.