» Articles » PMID: 35321656

On Bayesian Modeling of Censored Data in JAGS

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Biology
Date 2022 Mar 24
PMID 35321656
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Just Another Gibbs Sampling (JAGS) is a convenient tool to draw posterior samples using Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian modeling. However, the built-in function dinterval() for censored data misspecifies the default computation of deviance function, which limits likelihood-based Bayesian model comparison.

Results: To establish an automatic approach to specifying the correct deviance function in JAGS, we propose a simple and generic alternative modeling strategy for the analysis of censored outcomes. The two illustrative examples demonstrate that the alternative strategy not only properly draws posterior samples in JAGS, but also automatically delivers the correct deviance for model assessment. In the survival data application, our proposed method provides the correct value of mean deviance based on the exact likelihood function. In the drug safety data application, the deviance information criterion and penalized expected deviance for seven Bayesian models of censored data are simultaneously computed by our proposed approach and compared to examine the model performance.

Conclusions: We propose an effective strategy to model censored data in the Bayesian modeling framework in JAGS with the correct deviance specification, which can simplify the calculation of popular Kullback-Leibler based measures for model selection. The proposed approach applies to a broad spectrum of censored data types, such as survival data, and facilitates different censored Bayesian model structures.

Citing Articles

Meta-analysis of Censored Adverse Events.

Qi X, Zhou S, Peterson C, Wang Y, Fang X, Wang M N Engl J Stat Data Sci. 2025; 2(3):380-392.

PMID: 39991459 PMC: 11845246. DOI: 10.51387/24-nejsds62.


Flexible evaluation of surrogacy in platform studies.

Sachs M, Gabriel E, Crippa A, Daniels M Biostatistics. 2023; 25(1):220-236.

PMID: 36610075 PMC: 10939396. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxac053.


Bayesian sparse modeling to identify high-risk subgroups in meta-analysis of safety data.

Qi X, Zhou S, Wang Y, Peterson C Res Synth Methods. 2022; 13(6):807-820.

PMID: 36054779 PMC: 9649868. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1597.


Correction: On Bayesian modeling of censored data in JAGS.

Qi X, Zhou S, Plummer M BMC Bioinformatics. 2022; 23(1):238.

PMID: 35715749 PMC: 9206244. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-022-04785-w.

References
1.
Jakobsen J, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P . When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17(1):162. PMC: 5717805. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1. View

2.
Plummer M . Penalized loss functions for Bayesian model comparison. Biostatistics. 2008; 9(3):523-39. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxm049. View

3.
Han B, Yu M, Dignam J, Rathouz P . Bayesian approach for flexible modeling of semicompeting risks data. Stat Med. 2014; 33(29):5111-25. PMC: 4744123. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6313. View

4.
Carvajal G, Branch A, Sisson S, Roser D, van den Akker B, Monis P . Virus removal by ultrafiltration: Understanding long-term performance change by application of Bayesian analysis. Water Res. 2017; 122:269-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.057. View

5.
Johnson T, Kuhn K . Bayesian Thurstonian models for ranking data using JAGS. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 45(3):857-72. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0300-3. View