The performance of odds ratio estimation under different scenarios in Bayesian meta-analysis: A simulation study.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Esin Avci
{"title":"The performance of odds ratio estimation under different scenarios in Bayesian meta-analysis: A simulation study.","authors":"Esin Avci","doi":"10.1080/10543406.2025.2575941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of Bayesian meta-analysis methods for estimating odds ratios (ORs), with a focus on the impact of heterogeneity and prior distribution choices under varying conditions. Recognizing the limitations of frequentist approaches, especially in small-sample or rare-event scenarios, we implemented a Bayesian framework utilizing four different priors for heterogeneity: half-normal, exponential, half-Cauchy, and inverse-gamma. Simulation studies were conducted across 1,152 scenarios, varying the number of studies, event rarity, randomization ratios, and baseline risks. Results indicate that prior specification and study size substantially influence estimation accuracy, particularly for rare events. To further explore these interactions, CHAID (Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis, which effectively identified key factors affecting model performance, is implemented. CHAID revealed that the number of studies included in the meta-analysis (NSMA) is the most significant determinant of estimation reliability, while other variables such as event type and randomization ratio exert notable influence under specific conditions. CHAID also facilitated the categorization of OR estimation quality and heterogeneity levels, offering a powerful visual and interpretive aid. Overall, this study underscores the importance of prior selection in Bayesian meta-analysis and highlights CHAID analysis as a valuable complementary tool for uncovering complex interactions and enhancing result interpretability.</p>","PeriodicalId":54870,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","volume":" ","pages":"1184-1210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2025.2575941","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of Bayesian meta-analysis methods for estimating odds ratios (ORs), with a focus on the impact of heterogeneity and prior distribution choices under varying conditions. Recognizing the limitations of frequentist approaches, especially in small-sample or rare-event scenarios, we implemented a Bayesian framework utilizing four different priors for heterogeneity: half-normal, exponential, half-Cauchy, and inverse-gamma. Simulation studies were conducted across 1,152 scenarios, varying the number of studies, event rarity, randomization ratios, and baseline risks. Results indicate that prior specification and study size substantially influence estimation accuracy, particularly for rare events. To further explore these interactions, CHAID (Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis, which effectively identified key factors affecting model performance, is implemented. CHAID revealed that the number of studies included in the meta-analysis (NSMA) is the most significant determinant of estimation reliability, while other variables such as event type and randomization ratio exert notable influence under specific conditions. CHAID also facilitated the categorization of OR estimation quality and heterogeneity levels, offering a powerful visual and interpretive aid. Overall, this study underscores the importance of prior selection in Bayesian meta-analysis and highlights CHAID analysis as a valuable complementary tool for uncovering complex interactions and enhancing result interpretability.

贝叶斯元分析中不同情况下优势比估计的性能:模拟研究。
本研究对贝叶斯元分析方法进行了综合评价,重点讨论了异质性和不同条件下先验分布选择的影响。认识到频率论方法的局限性,特别是在小样本或罕见事件场景中,我们实现了一个贝叶斯框架,利用四种不同的异质性先验:半正态、指数、半柯西和逆伽马。模拟研究在1152种情况下进行,改变了研究数量、事件罕见度、随机化比率和基线风险。结果表明,先前的规格和研究规模实质上影响估计的准确性,特别是对于罕见事件。为了进一步探索这些相互作用,我们实施了CHAID(卡方自动相互作用检测)分析,该分析有效地识别了影响模型性能的关键因素。CHAID发现,纳入meta分析的研究数量(NSMA)是估计信度的最显著决定因素,而事件类型和随机化比例等其他变量在特定条件下也有显著影响。CHAID还促进了OR估计质量和异质性水平的分类,提供了强大的视觉和解释性援助。总之,本研究强调了先验选择在贝叶斯荟萃分析中的重要性,并强调了CHAID分析作为揭示复杂相互作用和增强结果可解释性的有价值的补充工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 医学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
18.20%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, a rapid publication journal, discusses quality applications of statistics in biopharmaceutical research and development. Now publishing six times per year, it includes expositions of statistical methodology with immediate applicability to biopharmaceutical research in the form of full-length and short manuscripts, review articles, selected/invited conference papers, short articles, and letters to the editor. Addressing timely and provocative topics important to the biostatistical profession, the journal covers: Drug, device, and biological research and development; Drug screening and drug design; Assessment of pharmacological activity; Pharmaceutical formulation and scale-up; Preclinical safety assessment; Bioavailability, bioequivalence, and pharmacokinetics; Phase, I, II, and III clinical development including complex innovative designs; Premarket approval assessment of clinical safety; Postmarketing surveillance; Big data and artificial intelligence and applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书