Bayesian analysis of a mastitis control plan to investigate the influence of veterinary prior beliefs on clinical interpretation

The fundamental objective for health research is to determine whether changes should be made to clinical decisions. Decisions made by veterinary surgeons in the light of new research evidence are known to be influenced by their prior beliefs, especially their initial opinions about the plausibility of possible results. In this paper, clinical trial results for a bovine mastitis control plan were evaluated within a Bayesian context, to incorporate a community of prior distributions that represented a spectrum of clinical prior beliefs. The aim was to quantify the effect of veterinary surgeons’ initial viewpoints on the interpretation of the trial results. A Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures. Stochastic models included a financial cost attributed to a change in clinical mastitis following implementation of the control plan. Prior distributions were incorporated that covered a realistic range of possible clinical viewpoints, including scepticism, enthusiasm and uncertainty. Posterior distributions revealed important differences in the financial gain that clinicians with different starting viewpoints would anticipate from the mastitis control plan, given the actual research results. For example, a severe sceptic would ascribe a probability of 0.50 for a return of <£5 per cow in an average herd that implemented the plan, whereas an enthusiast would ascribe this probability for a return of >£20 per cow. Simulations using increased trial sizes indicated that if the original study was four times as large, an initial sceptic would be more convinced about the efficacy of the control plan but would still anticipate less financial return than an initial enthusiast would anticipate after the original study. In conclusion, it is possible to estimate how clinicians’ prior beliefs influence their interpretation of research evidence. Further research on the extent to which different interpretations of evidence result in changes to clinical practice would be worthwhile.

STORM - a novel information fusion and cluster interpretation technique

Analysis of data without labels is commonly subject to scrutiny by unsupervised machine learning techniques. Such techniques provide more meaningful representations, useful for better understanding of a problem at hand, than by looking only at the data itself. Although abundant expert knowledge exists in many areas where unlabelled data is examined, such knowledge is rarely incorporated into automatic analysis. Incorporation of expert knowledge is frequently a matter of combining multiple data sources from disparate hypothetical spaces. In cases where such spaces belong to different data types, this task becomes even more challenging. In this paper we present a novel immune-inspired method that enables the fusion of such disparate types of data for a specific set of problems. We show that our method provides a better visual understanding of one hypothetical space with the help of data from another hypothetical space. We believe that our model has implications for the field of exploratory data analysis and knowledge discovery.