BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Lifeng Lin

Lifeng Lin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Nonparametric Bayesian Approach to Treatment Ranking in Network Meta-Analysis with Application to Comparisons of Antidepressants

Network meta-analysis is a powerful tool to synthesize evidence from independent studies and compare multiple treatments simultaneously. A critical task of performing a network meta-analysis is to offer ranks of all available treatment options for a specific disease outcome. Frequently, the estimated treatment rankings are accompanied by a large amount of uncertainty, suffer from multiplicity issues, and rarely permit ties. These issues make interpreting rankings problematic as they are often treated as absolute metrics. To address these shortcomings, we formulate a ranking strategy that adapts to scenarios with high order uncertainty by producing more conservative results. This improves the interpretability while simultaneously accounting for multiple comparisons. To admit ties between treatment effects, we also develop a Bayesian Nonparametric approach for network meta-analysis. The approach capitalizes on the induced clustering mechanism of Bayesian Nonparametric methods producing a positive probability that two treatment effects are equal. We demonstrate the utility of the procedure through numerical experiments and a network meta-analysis designed to study antidepressant treatments.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A Robust Bayesian Copas Selection Model for Quantifying and Correcting Publication Bias

The validity of conclusions from meta-analysis is potentially threatened by publication bias. Most existing procedures for correcting publication bias assume normality of the study-specific effects that account for between-study heterogeneity. However, this assumption may not be valid, and the performance of these bias correction procedures can be highly sensitive to departures from normality. Further, there exist few measures to quantify the magnitude of publication bias based on selection models. In this paper, we address both of these issues. First, we explore the use of heavy-tailed distributions for the study-specific effects within a Bayesian hierarchical framework. The deviance information criterion (DIC) is used to determine the appropriate distribution to use for conducting the final analysis. Second, we develop a new measure to quantify the magnitude of publication bias based on Hellinger distance. Our measure is easy to interpret and takes advantage of the estimation uncertainty afforded naturally by the posterior distribution. We illustrate our proposed approach through simulation studies and meta-analyses on lung cancer and antidepressants. To assess the prevalence of publication bias, we apply our method to 1500 meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Our methods are implemented in the publicly available R package RobustBayesianCopas.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Testing for publication bias in meta-analysis under Copas selection model

In meta-analyses, publication bias is a well-known, important and challenging issue because the validity of the results from a meta-analysis is threatened if the sample of studies retrieved for review is biased. One popular method to deal with publication bias is the Copas selection model, which provides a flexible sensitivity analysis for correcting the estimates with considerable insight into the data suppression mechanism. However, rigorous testing procedures under the Copas selection model to detect bias are lacking. To fill this gap, we develop a score-based test for detecting publication bias under the Copas selection model. We reveal that the behavior of the standard score test statistic is irregular because the parameters of the Copas selection model disappear under the null hypothesis, leading to an identifiability problem. We propose a novel test statistic and derive its limiting distribution. A bootstrap procedure is provided to obtain the p-value of the test for practical applications. We conduct extensive Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed test and apply the method to several existing meta-analyses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access