arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2003.06002stat.AP
收藏

贝叶斯后验区间校准以提升观察性研究的可解释性

Bayesian Posterior Interval Calibration to Improve the Interpretability of Observational Studies

Jami J. Mulgrave, David Madigan, George Hripcsak

AI总结:

本文提出一种基于贝叶斯统计的后验区间校准方法,利用阴性和阳性对照校正观察性研究中的系统误差,使置信区间和p值恢复名义特性,从而提升观察性研究的可解释性。

摘要:

观察性医疗数据为大规模估计医疗产品的因果效应提供了可能。然而,观察性研究产生的置信区间和p值仅考虑了随机误差,未能考虑系统误差。因此,诸如置信区间覆盖率和I类错误率等操作特性常常严重偏离其名义值,导致解释无法进行。尽管人们长期以来意识到观察性研究中存在系统误差,但以经验方式考虑系统误差的分析方法相对较新。若干作者提出了使用阴性对照(也称为“证伪假设”)和阳性对照的方法。其基本思想是根据在阴性和阳性对照分析中检测到的偏倚(如有)来调整置信区间和p值。在本工作中,我们提出了一种使用阴性和阳性对照进行后验区间校准的贝叶斯统计程序。我们证明,后验区间校准程序能够恢复名义特性,例如95%后验区间对真实效应量的95%覆盖率。

英文摘要:

Observational healthcare data offer the potential to estimate causal effects of medical products on a large scale. However, the confidence intervals and p-values produced by observational studies only account for random error and fail to account for systematic error. As a consequence, operating characteristics such as confidence interval coverage and Type I error rates often deviate sharply from their nominal values and render interpretation impossible. While there is longstanding awareness of systematic error in observational studies, analytic approaches to empirically account for systematic error are relatively new. Several authors have proposed approaches using negative controls (also known as "falsification hypotheses") and positive controls. The basic idea is to adjust confidence intervals and p-values in light of the bias (if any) detected in the analyses of the negative and positive control. In this work, we propose a Bayesian statistical procedure for posterior interval calibration that uses negative and positive controls. We show that the posterior interval calibration procedure restores nominal characteristics, such as 95% coverage of the true effect size by the 95% posterior interval.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑