Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 74 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 37 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 36 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 37 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 104 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 184 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 448 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 32 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

A bivariate likelihood approach for estimation of a pooled continuous effect size from a heteroscedastic meta-analysis study (2104.03394v1)

Published 7 Apr 2021 in stat.ME and stat.AP

Abstract: The DerSimonian-Laird (DL) weighted average method has been widely used for estimation of a pooled effect size from an aggregated data meta-analysis study. It is mainly criticized for its underestimation of the standard error of the pooled effect size in the presence of heterogeneous study effect sizes. The uncertainty in the estimation of the between-study variance is not accounted for in the calculation of this standard error. Due to this negative property, many alternative estimation approaches have been proposed in literature. One approach was developed by Hardy and Thompson (HT), who implemented a profile likelihood approach instead of the moment-based approach of DL. Others have further extended the likelihood approach and proposed higher-order likelihood inferences (e.g., Bartlett-type corrections). Likelihood-based methods better address the uncertainty in estimating the between-study variance than the DL method, but all these methods assume that the within-study standard deviations are known and equal to the observed standard error of the study effect sizes. Here we treat the observed standard errors as estimators for the within-study variability and we propose a bivariate likelihood approach that jointly estimates the pooled effect size, the between-study variance, and the potentially heteroscedastic within-study variances. We study the performance of the proposed method by means of simulation, and compare it to DL, HT, and the higher-order likelihood methods. Our proposed approach appears to be less sensitive to the number of studies, and less biased in case of heteroscedasticity.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.