↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian dose–response analysis for epidemiological studies with complex uncertainty in dose estimation

Overview of attention for article published in Statistics in Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Bayesian dose–response analysis for epidemiological studies with complex uncertainty in dose estimation
Published in
Statistics in Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/sim.6635
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Most conventional risk analysis methods rely on a single best estimate of exposure per person, which does not allow for adjustment for exposure-related uncertainty. Here, we propose a Bayesian model averaging method to properly quantify the relationship between radiation dose and disease outcomes by accounting for shared and unshared uncertainty in estimated dose. Our Bayesian risk analysis method utilizes multiple realizations of sets (vectors) of doses generated by a two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation method that properly separates shared and unshared errors in dose estimation. The exposure model used in this work is taken from a study of the risk of thyroid nodules among a cohort of 2376 subjects who were exposed to fallout from nuclear testing in Kazakhstan. We assessed the performance of our method through an extensive series of simulations and comparisons against conventional regression risk analysis methods. When the estimated doses contain relatively small amounts of uncertainty, the Bayesian method using multiple a priori plausible draws of dose vectors gave similar results to the conventional regression-based methods of dose-response analysis. However, when large and complex mixtures of shared and unshared uncertainties are present, the Bayesian method using multiple dose vectors had significantly lower relative bias than conventional regression-based risk analysis methods and better coverage, that is, a markedly increased capability to include the true risk coefficient within the 95% credible interval of the Bayesian-based risk estimate. An evaluation of the dose-response using our method is presented for an epidemiological study of thyroid disease following radiation exposure. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
India 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Master 3 19%
Other 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 5 31%
Unknown 4 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,283,082
of 27,387,710 outputs
Outputs from Statistics in Medicine
#2,243
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,431
of 282,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Statistics in Medicine
#19
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,387,710 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 282,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.