↓ Skip to main content

Exact sampling of the unobserved covariates in Bayesian spline models for measurement error problems

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics and Computing, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Exact sampling of the unobserved covariates in Bayesian spline models for measurement error problems
Published in
Statistics and Computing, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11222-015-9572-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anindya Bhadra, Raymond J. Carroll

Abstract

In truncated polynomial spline or B-spline models where the covariates are measured with error, a fully Bayesian approach to model fitting requires the covariates and model parameters to be sampled at every Markov chain Monte Carlo iteration. Sampling the unobserved covariates poses a major computational problem and usually Gibbs sampling is not possible. This forces the practitioner to use a Metropolis-Hastings step which might suffer from unacceptable performance due to poor mixing and might require careful tuning. In this article we show for the cases of truncated polynomial spline or B-spline models of degree equal to one, the complete conditional distribution of the covariates measured with error is available explicitly as a mixture of double-truncated normals, thereby enabling a Gibbs sampling scheme. We demonstrate via a simulation study that our technique performs favorably in terms of computational efficiency and statistical performance. Our results indicate up to 62 and 54 % increase in mean integrated squared error efficiency when compared to existing alternatives while using truncated polynomial splines and B-splines respectively. Furthermore, there is evidence that the gain in efficiency increases with the measurement error variance, indicating the proposed method is a particularly valuable tool for challenging applications that present high measurement error. We conclude with a demonstration on a nutritional epidemiology data set from the NIH-AARP study and by pointing out some possible extensions of the current work.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 3 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,895,955
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Statistics and Computing
#99
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,452
of 264,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics and Computing
#10
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.