Estimating Bayesian decision problems with heterogeneous priors

In many areas of economics there is a growing interest in how expertise andpreferences drive individual and group decision making under uncertainty. Increasingly, we wish to estimate such models to quantify which of these drive decisionmaking. In this paper we propose a new channel through which we can empirically identify expertise and preference parameters by using variation in decisionsover heterogeneous priors. Relative to existing estimation approaches, our \Prior-Based Identification" extends the possible environments which can be estimated,and also substantially improves the accuracy and precision of estimates in thoseenvironments which can be estimated using existing methods.

P value and the theory of hypothesis testing: an explanation for new researchers.

In the 1920s, Ronald Fisher developed the theory behind the p value and Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson developed the theory of hypothesis testing. These distinct theories have provided researchers important quantitative tools to confirm or refute their hypotheses. The p value is the probability to obtain an effect equal to or more extreme than the one observed presuming the null hypothesis of no effect is true; it gives researchers a measure of the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis. As commonly used, investigators will select a threshold p value below which they will reject the null hypothesis. The theory of hypothesis testing allows researchers to reject a null hypothesis in favor of an alternative hypothesis of some effect. As commonly used, investigators choose Type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true) and Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when it is false) levels and determine some critical region. If the test statistic falls into that critical region, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Despite similarities between the two, the p value and the theory of hypothesis testing are different theories that often are misunderstood and confused, leading researchers to improper conclusions. Perhaps the most common misconception is to consider the p value as the probability that the null hypothesis is true rather than the probability of obtaining the difference observed, or one that is more extreme, considering the null is true. Another concern is the risk that an important proportion of statistically significant results are falsely significant. Researchers should have a minimum understanding of these two theories so that they are better able to plan, conduct, interpret, and report scientific experiments.

Toxic substances in blood: an analysis of current recommendations under a Bayesian (decision) approach

This article extends existing discussion in literature on probabilistic inference and decision making with respect to continuous hypotheses that are prevalent in forensic toxicology. As a main aim, this research investigates the properties of a widely followed approach for quantifying the level of toxic substances in blood samples, and to compare this procedure with a Bayesian probabilistic approach. As an example, attention is confined to the presence of toxic substances, such as THC, in blood from car drivers. In this context, the interpretation of results from laboratory analyses needs to take into account legal requirements for establishing the 'presence' of target substances in blood. In a first part, the performance of the proposed Bayesian model for the estimation of an unknown parameter (here, the amount of a toxic substance) is illustrated and compared with the currently used method. The model is then used in a second part to approach-in a rational way-the decision component of the problem, that is judicial questions of the kind 'Is the quantity of THC measured in the blood over the legal threshold of 1.5 μg/l?'. This is pointed out through a practical example.

Evidencing and Sharing Value with Decision Making Models in an Industrial Maintenance Network

The objective of this thesis is to concretize the potential benefits that the industrial maintenance case network could achieve through using the value-based life-cycle model and the flexible asset management model. It is also inspected what factors prevent value creation and sharing in the maintenance contract practices of the case network. This thesis is a case study which utilizes modelling. Four scenarios were developed to demonstrate value creation in the future. The data was partly provided by the collaborating company, partly gathered from public financial statement information. The results indicate that value has been created through the past maintenance of the collaborating company’s rod mill and that profitability of the collaborating company has been mostly on satisfactory level during the past few years. Potential value might be created by increasing the share of proactive maintenance of the rod mill in the future. Profitability of the network could be improved in the future through flexible asset management operations. The main obstacle for value creation and sharing seems to be the lack of sufficient trust between the network members.

Gaining acceptability for the Bayesian decision-theoretic approach in dose-escalation studies

There has recently been increasing demand for better designs to conduct first-into-man dose-escalation studies more efficiently, more accurately and more quickly. The authors look into the Bayesian decision-theoretic approach and use simulation as a tool to investigate the impact of compromises with conventional practice that might make the procedures more acceptable for implementation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bayesian decision procedures for dose-escalation based on evidence of undesirable events and therapeutic benefit.

In this paper, Bayesian decision procedures are developed for dose-escalation studies based on bivariate observations of undesirable events and signs of therapeutic benefit. The methods generalize earlier approaches taking into account only the undesirable outcomes. Logistic regression models are used to model the two responses, which are both assumed to take a binary form. A prior distribution for the unknown model parameters is suggested and an optional safety constraint can be included. Gain functions to be maximized are formulated in terms of accurate estimation of the limits of a therapeutic window or optimal treatment of the next cohort of subjects, although the approach could be applied to achieve any of a wide variety of objectives. The designs introduced are illustrated through simulation and retrospective implementation to a completed dose-escalation study. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies

This article describes an approach to optimal design of phase II clinical trials using Bayesian decision theory. The method proposed extends that suggested by Stallard (1998, Biometrics54, 279–294) in which designs were obtained to maximize a gain function including the cost of drug development and the benefit from a successful therapy. Here, the approach is extended by the consideration of other potential therapies, the development of which is competing for the same limited resources. The resulting optimal designs are shown to have frequentist properties much more similar to those traditionally used in phase II trials.

Bayesian decision procedures for binary and continuous bivariate dose-escalation studies

In this paper, Bayesian decision procedures are developed for dose-escalation studies based on binary measures of undesirable events and continuous measures of therapeutic benefit. The methods generalize earlier approaches where undesirable events and therapeutic benefit are both binary. A logistic regression model is used to model the binary responses, while a linear regression model is used to model the continuous responses. Prior distributions for the unknown model parameters are suggested. A gain function is discussed and an optional safety constraint is included. Copyright (C) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Decision theory and real estate development: a note on uncertainty

Real estate development appraisal is a quantification of future expectations. The appraisal model relies upon the valuer/developer having an understanding of the future in terms of the future marketability of the completed development and the future cost of development. In some cases the developer has some degree of control over the possible variation in the variables, as with the cost of construction through the choice of specification. However, other variables, such as the sale price of the final product, are totally dependent upon the vagaries of the market at the completion date. To try to address the risk of a different outcome to the one expected (modelled) the developer will often carry out a sensitivity analysis on the development. However, traditional sensitivity analysis has generally only looked at the best and worst scenarios and has focused on the anticipated or expected outcomes. This does not take into account uncertainty and the range of outcomes that can happen. A fuller analysis should include examination of the uncertainties in each of the components of the appraisal and account for the appropriate distributions of the variables. Similarly, as many of the variables in the model are not independent, the variables need to be correlated. This requires a standardised approach and we suggest that the use of a generic forecasting software package, in this case Crystal Ball, allows the analyst to work with an existing development appraisal model set up in Excel (or other spreadsheet) and to work with a predetermined set of probability distributions. Without a full knowledge of risk, developers are unable to determine the anticipated level of return that should be sought to compensate for the risk. This model allows the user a better understanding of the possible outcomes for the development. Ultimately the final decision will be made relative to current expectations and current business constraints, but by assessing the upside and downside risks more appropriately, the decision maker should be better placed to make a more informed and “better”.