#statstab #537 {hdbayes} An R Package for Bayesian Analysis of Generalized Linear Models Using Historical Data
Thoughts: An interesting approach to priors. I'm not v familiar w this so curious what others think.
#statstab #537 {hdbayes} An R Package for Bayesian Analysis of Generalized Linear Models Using Historical Data
Thoughts: An interesting approach to priors. I'm not v familiar w this so curious what others think.
#statstab #532 Fractional Bayes Factors for Model Comparison Free - O'Hagan (1995)
Thoughts: Use a fraction of the data to convert an improper prior into a minimally informative prior.
#statstab #522 Bayes Rules! Different priors, different posteriors
Thoughts: Nice illustration of how uninformative and informative priors change your posterior.
#statstab #520 ReverseβBayes methods for evidence assessment and research synthesis
Thoughts: I was reminded of this paper on assessing the evidentiary value of a finding. What do ppl think?
#bayes #inference #evidence #probability #priors #sensitivity
#statstab #466 Bayesian workflow: Prior determination, predictive checks and sensitivity analyses
Thoughts: Having a good bayesian work flow can be challenging with complex models.
#priors #bayesian #sensitivityanalysis #posterior #ppc #brms
#statstab #459 Getting Comfortable with Expressing Beliefs as Distributions
Thoughts: Bayesian stats requires a good understanding of priors, but these are often unintuitive. Plots help.
#bayesian #priors #ggplot #r #dataviz #learing #education
https://brian-lookabaugh.github.io/website-brianlookabaugh/blog/2025/priors-distributions/
#statstab #445 What are credible priors and what are skeptical priors?
Thoughts: An excellent thread on prior elicitation by some of the big names in the field (frequentist and bayesian).
#priors #bayesian #bayes #likelihood #medicine #clinical #debate
https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/what-are-credible-priors-and-what-are-skeptical-priors/580
A few weeks ago Dan Scharfstein asked a group of colleagues about how to report an odds ratio of 1.70 with 95% confidence limits of 0.96 and 3.02. Back-calculating from these statistics gives a two-sided P of 0.06 or 0.07, corresponding to an S-value (surprisal, log base 2 of P) of about 4 bits of information against the null hypothesis of OR=1. So, not much evidence against the null from the result, but still favoring a positive association over an inverse one, and so thought worthy of reportin...