Cad Saude Publica
Cadernos de Saúde Pública
Cad. Saúde
Pública
0102-311X
1678-4464
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz
O ano de 2013 marca o 250o aniversário da
apresentação do teorema de Bayes pelo filósofo Richard Price à Royal Society em
1763. Thomas Bayes foi uma pessoa pouco conhecida em sua época, mas no século XX
o teorema que leva o seu nome tornou-se amplamente utilizado em muitas áreas de
pesquisa. O teorema de Bayes é a base dos chamados métodos bayesianos, um
procedimento de inferência estatística que permite incorporar na análise o
conhecimento prévio sobre características relevantes dos dados. Atualmente, os
métodos bayesianos são largamente usados em muitas diferentes áreas como
astronomia, economia, marketing, genética, bioinformática e ciências sociais. Em
adição, é observado na literatura que muitos autores têm discutido os recentes
avanços do uso dos métodos bayesianos na análise de dados epidemiológicos. No
presente artigo, apresentamos uma visão global dos métodos bayesianos, sua
utilidade na pesquisa epidemiológica e os tópicos em epidemiologia em que estes
métodos podem ser extensivamente usados nos próximos anos.
Introduction
The first mathematical formulation using the Bayesian method is attributed to Thomas
Bayes, a British Presbyterian minister. Very little is known about his personal
history. It is believed that he was born around 1701 in Hertfordshire, England and
died in 1761 in Tunbridge. Many facts about his life are speculation such as the
exact date of his birth and the authorship of a book on Theology entitled
Divine Benevolence: or an Attempt to Prove That the Principal End of the
Divine Providence and Government is the Happiness of His Creatures,
that concerned the motive behind God’s actions in making the world. In 1719, he
began his studies of logic and theology at the University of Edinburgh. The only
scientific work published during his lifetime was The Doctrine of
Fluxions, in 1736, in which he defended the logical foundation of Isaac
Newton’s calculus. Two years after his death, his friend Richard Price (1723-1791)
presented the Royal Society with a manuscript authored by Thomas Bayes entitled
An Essay Towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances
1. Price said he found the essay
among Bayes’ papers and in his opinion it “has great merit and well deserves
to be preserved” 2 (p.
451). The essay offered the first clear solution to a problem of inverse
probability, where Bayes described how we can calculate the probability of the
occurrence of an event given the known probability of a certain condition. This
formula is known as Bayes’ theorem. It is interesting to note that Richard Price
believed that Bayes’ theorem was based on theological arguments and it could prove
the existence of God 3. In 1748,
the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume published a book entitled An
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In chapter ten of this work
entitled Of Miracles, Hume wrote his famous argument against
miracles 4. Today, some authors
claim that Hume’s statements were based on arguments taken from Bayes’s theorem
5,6,7. Despite these philosophical ideas, Bayes’ essay
seemed to have been forgotten until the publication of the book entitled
Théorie Analytique des Probabilités by the French mathematician
and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace, in 1812. It is believed that Laplace was not
familiar with the work of Thomas Bayes and he independently developed a more formal
version of Bayes’ theorem.
Currently, Bayesian ideas are used in many fields of technology and research, such as
modern computers which use Bayesian filters to classify emails and detect spam 8. Another example of the modern use
of Bayesian ideas is in robots which, based on a Bayesian framework 9 and a Bayes network based system,
distinguished terrestrial rocks from meteorites in the first robotic identification
of a meteorite in 2000 in the Elephant Moraine in the Antarctic 10. In addition, NASA’s Mars
Exploration Rover mission has been using Bayesian classification algorithms to study
the physical properties of the surface of Mars 11. Nowadays, Bayesian methods are widely used in many
different fields of research, such as astronomy 12, economics and econometrics 13,14, marketing 15, actuarial science 16, psychological research 17, genetics 18,19, evolutionary biology 20, bioinformatics 21, demography 22, social sciences 23, public health 24, drug development 25 and clinical trials 26,27. The use of Bayesian methods in epidemiological
studies has been discussed by several authors 28,29,30,31 and Congdon 32 claims that the Bayesian approach is very useful for
modeling epidemiological datasets, since they allow the control of possible
confounding influences on disease outcomes and the establishment of causal and
dose-response relationships. In addition, Dunson 28 showed that the use of Bayesian techniques in
epidemiological studies is a powerful mechanism for incorporating information from
previous studies and controlling confounding. Appropriate methods for dealing with
interactions between variables and confounding effects are essential for
epidemiological studies, and in this respect Bayesian methods can be very useful.
Bayesian methods represent a totally different way of thinking about research
methods where the researcher’s previous knowledge and experience have an important
effect on inference and decision-making.
The traditional approach to statistical inference is the frequentist (or classical)
technique, where results are interpreted in terms of the frequency of occurrence of
an event observed in a hypothetically large number of repetitions of the experiment.
Frequentist inferences are based only on observational data, while Bayesian
inference assumes that prior knowledge can be formally incorporated into the
analytical process. We can therefore say that the Bayesian research method is based
both on an empirical world represented by the sample data and on human reasoning
represented by the accumulated experience of the researcher.
In the present article, we present an overview of the Bayesian approach together with
a brief description of the Bayesian statistical inference procedure and comparison
with the standard frequentist approach. We also discuss the advantages of the
Bayesian approach over the traditional research method applied to the analysis of
epidemiological data and discuss some areas of epidemiology which should benefit
from the use of Bayesian methods in coming years.
Are we in the Bayesian era?
In 1996, David Moore published an article 33 that discussed the possibility of teaching Bayesian
inference on a first statistics course for students from different backgrounds. He
argued that Bayesian methods were rarely used in practice and teaching them would
deprive students of instruction about more common statistical methods. It is
possible that this statement was based on limitations caused by the time needed for
software and hardware to analyze data using a Bayesian approach. Major advances in
software and hardware in the last 20 years have been one of the factors that has led
to a sharp increase in the use of Bayesian methods. To obtain an idea of the current
use of Bayesian methods in health research, a search was made in PubMed using the
keyword “Bayesian”. The annual number of articles is presented graphically in Figure 1 which shows that the first article
using the term “Bayesian” indexed in PubMed was published in 1963 34. After this first publication, we
observe a very modest increase in the number of articles up to the middle of the
1980s, after which a large increase can be observed. It is important to remember
that portable personal computers only became popular in the middle of the 1980s,
significantly contributing to the use of Bayesian methods, since the approach is
usually depends on computational algorithms. A large increase in the number of
published articles using the term Bayesian can be observed toward the end of
20th century. It is possible that this increase was due to the
emergence of new software adapted to Bayesian analysis, such as the free software
WinBUGS 35. This software uses
simulation methods, such as the popular Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods
36, and was possibly the most
important computational advances to have popularized the use of Bayesian
methodology. The first version of WinBUGS for Windows was made available in 1997
37. Today, OpenBUGS is the
open-source version of WinBUGS and can be freely downloaded from the project website
(http://www.openbugs.info/w/Downloads).
Figure 1
Results of the search of PubMed for articles containing the term
Bayesian. The line shows the number of articles containing the term
Bayesian published each year divided by the total number de articles
indexed in that year (x 1,000).
In 2010, 2.56 in every 1,000 articles indexed in PubMed contained the term Bayesian
(Figure 1), showing the growing use of
Bayesian methods in health research since the publication of Moore’s article 29 and suggesting that Bayesian
statistics is actually an important issue to students who are starting their studies
to become researchs. The advantages of the use of Bayesian methods in specific
fields of knowledge, such as genetics 18, oncology 38 and parasitology 39, have therefore been discussed in a number of research
articles available in the literature.
One of the reasons for the widespread use of Bayesian methods may be related to the
ease with which statistical inferences can be made even with complex problems. It is
therefore expected that the use of Bayesian methods will continue to increase in
response to the demands of ever more complex problems in the health field.
A practical example: estimating disease prevalence
In order to illustrate Bayesian inference procedures, let us consider a simple
example in which we estimate the prevalence θ of a disease among the inhabitants of
a given community. A parameter is defined as an unknown numerical characteristic of
a population. Prevalence θ is therefore a parameter and may be estimated using a
frequentist or Bayesian approach. First, let us describe how this is done using the
frequentist approach. A sample of size n is represented by a
probability function, defined as the likelihood function and denoted by
f(x|θ). In the frequentist
approach, inference is based only on the likelihood function.
Xi is a random binary variable
which assumes the value of 1 if the i-th individual has the disease
of interest and the value of 0 if the i-th individual does not have
the disease: (i = 1,…,n). Thus, the probability of
the i-th individual having the disease is
P(Xi = 1) = θ, and
the probability of the individual not having the disease is
P(Xi = 0) = 1 – θ,
where 0≤θ≤1. In this case, we say that
Xi follows a Bernoulli distribution
with success probability θ, and its probability function is given by
P(Xi =
xi) = θ
xi (1 –
θ)1
–xi, where
xi assumes the value 0 or 1.
Assuming that X1, X2, …,
Xn are independent random
variables, that is, assuming that an individual having the disease does not affect
the probability of another individual having the disease, the likelihood function is
given by.
The maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) procedure is a frequentist method commonly
used to estimate the parameters of a statistical model 40,41. Using the MLE method the estimate of a parameter θ is
given by the value of this parameter in the parameter space (set of all possible
values of the parameter) that maximizes the likelihood function
f(x|θ). For
this purpose, we can use differential calculus tools to obtain an estimator
of θ. In practice, it is often more convenient to maximize
the logarithm of the likelihood function, also called the log-likelihood function.
If we set the first derivative of the log-likelihood function equal to zero, the
maximum likelihood estimator of θ is given
by
This is a well-known expression which can be found in many widely used epidemiology
textbooks. Inference is then based on a hypothetical series of data sets collected
under identical conditions. For example, a 95% confidence interval is a range of
values calculated from the sample observations, with 95% certainty that all possible
random samples drawn from the same population using the same sampling scheme would
generate intervals containing the true value of the parameter. However, a 95%
confidence interval does not mean that there is a 95% probability that the
calculated interval contains the true value of the parameter. Although this
interpretation is quite intuitive, it is not valid since the frequentist method
cannot assign probabilities to any particular parameter.
The frequentist approach assumes that the parameter of interest is a fixed quantity,
while in the Bayesian approach parameter uncertainty is represented by a probability
distribution. From a statistical viewpoint, this is perhaps the most striking
difference between the traditional frequentist approach and the Bayesian approach
and is cause of much controversy, since frequentist statisticians do not accept the
parameters to be represented by random variables.
In Bayesian analysis, a prior probability distribution for all parameters in the
statistical model is necessary. On observing that the prevalence of the disease is
in a limited range (0,1), a plausible prior probability distribution is assigned to
a parameter θ given by a beta distribution 42, a flexible probability distribution which can take
many forms depending on the values of a and b. In
this case, the prior distribution f (θ)for θ has a probability
density function given by
where a and b are known values, and
B(a,b) is the beta distribution in which
a and b are the hyperparameters of the prior
distribution. Hyperparameters may be chosen by a panel of experts or by using
results from previous studies. For example, let’s say that an experienced
epidemiologist believes that the prevalence of the disease in a specified population
is around 15% and is almost certain that prevalence is no less than 2% and no
greater than 30%. Based on this information, we now need to find the values of the
constants a and b. One possible strategy is to
approximate the mode of the beta distribution to 15% and its standard deviation to
one quarter of the distance between the limits 2% and 30% (for further details see
Browne 200143) thus giving
a = 4.96 and b = 23.45. The graph in Figure 2 shows the probability density function
of the beta distribution with parameter values of 4.96 and 23.45 mathematically
representing the prior information given by the epidemiologist. It can be observed
that the maximum value of the probability density function is 15% (the mode). In
addition, it can be seen that the probability of prevalence being higher than 30% or
lower than 2% is low. This process is called prior probability elicitation 44.
Figure 2
Prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution
with parameters 4.96 and 23.45. The dashed line represents the mode of
the distribution (maximum value).
The likelihood function plays a key role in statistical inference in both frequentist
and Bayesian approaches. The Bayes’ theorem says that the distribution of θ given
the data (named posterior distribution) is proportional to the product of the prior
distribution f (θ) and likelihood function f
(x|θ). Bayes’
formula establishes that .
Thus, we have
where k is a constant value known as the normalizing constant. The
posterior distribution for θ also follows a beta distribution, since the expression
for f (θ|x) given above is in the form of a beta
distribution. When the posterior distribution f
(θ|x) is in the same family as the prior distribution
f (θ), we say that f (θ) is a conjugate prior
distribution for θ.
Let us suppose a sample of size n = 100 individuals from the population of interest,
of which 22 individuals have the disease in interest. The maximum likelihood
estimate for θ is given by 22/100 = 22%. Considering the Bayesian approach, the
posterior distribution for θ is proportional to
, since a = 4.96, b = 23.45,
and n = 100. Thus, f
(θ|x) follows a beta
distribution with parameters 26.96 and 101.45.
Figure 3 compares the prior and posterior
distributions for θ. We note that the curve that represents the posterior
distribution is the lower dispersion curve, suggesting that the posterior
distribution provides more information about θ than the prior distribution.
Considering that the mean of a random variable that follows a beta distribution with
parameters a and b is given by
a/(a+b), the Bayesian
estimate of disease prevalence is given by 26.96/(26.96+101.45) = 21%.
Figure 3
Comparison of prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta
distribution with parameters 4.96 and 23.45 (dashed line) with the
posterior distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45 (continuous line).
The graph in Figure 4 shows the posterior
distribution for θ, where the gray area corresponds to 95% of the total area under
the curve. This area represents the 95% credible interval, which in this case is
within a range of 14.4 to 28.4%. The credible interval is the Bayesian equivalent of
the frequentist confidence interval, and we can interpret that there is a 95%
probability that the true prevalence θ lies within this range.
Figure 4
Posterior distribution for θ given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45, where the gray area describes a 95%
credible interval.
The use of noninformative prior distribution
The use of a noninformative prior distribution is suggested when there is total
ignorance about the parameter of interest. When using noninformative prior
distribution for the parameter θ the Bayesian estimates tend to be close to the
corresponding maximum-likelihood estimates, since in this case f
(θ) has minimal impact on the posterior distribution f
(θ|x). There are
different techniques for constructing noninformative prior distributions, such as
the Jeffreys prior 45 based on the
so-called Fisher information, a concept used in the theory of maximum-likelihood
estimation. Using the problem presented in the previous section, the Jeffrey prior
is defined in terms of a beta distribution with parameters 0.5 and 0.5 (see, for
example, Box & Tiao 46). In
this case, the posterior distribution f
(θ|x) follows a beta
distribution with parameters 22.5 and 78.5, and the Bayes estimate of prevalence is
22.5/(22.5+78.5) = 22.3%. Noninformative prior distributions are useful when we have
no knowledge about the parameter of interest or when a more objective analysis is
required. Bayesian analysis using noninformative prior distribution has a number of
advantages over maximum-likelihood estimation in situations where the likelihood
function is particularly complex and traditional optimization methods are not well
suited to such problems.
Table 1 illustrates frequentist and Bayesian
estimates (posterior means) of prevalence based on different sample sizes and
choices of prior distribution for θ. For all assumed sample sizes we fixed
. We also assigned beta (4.96, 23.45) as an informative prior
distribution for θ, beta (0.5, 0.5) as a noninformative prior distribution and beta
(10,10) as an example of an inadequate prior distribution based on an implausible
expert opinion. Bayes estimates based on the noninformative prior distribution are
similar to the frequentist estimates. As sample size increases, we can observe that
frequentist and Bayes estimates become more similar, even in the case of the
inadequate prior distribution for θ. This occurs because in large samples the
contribution of the likelihood function to the posterior distribution is relatively
greater in relation to the adopted prior distribution for the parameter.
Table 1
Frequentist and Bayesian prevalence estimates (posterior means) based
on different sample sizes and choices of prior distribution for
θ.
All calculations and simulations were carried out using the R software (The R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria;
http://www.r-project.org).
Advantages of Bayesian methods
Several authors claim that the main advantage of the Bayesian approach over the
frequentist method is that it allows the incorporation of prior knowledge by
specifying appropriate prior probabilities 47,48. However, the advantages of Bayesian methods are not
limited to the possibility of incorporating out-of-sample information into the
analyses. For example, Bayesian methods are especially useful for statistical
inference of complex models which present significant difficulties for frequentist
methods. Calculating the maximum of very complex likelihood functions can be a
difficult task in practice, despite the advances in computer software and hardware
in recent years. In such situations, the frequentist approach usually involves
numerical tools, such as the traditional Newton-Raphson method. However, convergence
problems may occur or solutions may be highly dependent on initial values. Bayesian
methods can overcome this problem by using the MCMC 49,50 methods, that allow samples to be simulated using the
parameters of interest. In this approach, inference is therefore based on the
sample, remembering that the Bayesian approach treats the parameters as random
variables. In some special situations, this procedure can be simplified by the use
of a Bayesian technique based on a procedure called data augmentation introduced by
Tanner & Wong 51. This
procedure “augments” the observed data to simplify the likelihood function.
Another important aspect of the frequentist inference approach concerns the
identifiability of the parameters of a given model. The problem of identifiability
occurs when there are more parameters than degrees of freedom. In such situations,
parameter estimation based on the frequentist approach is a difficult task. Degrees
of freedom can be understood as “the number of independent units of
information in a sample relevant to the estimation of a parameter or calculation
of a statistic” 52
(p. 118). A practical example is the assessment of new diagnostic tests which have
not achieved the gold standard. Joseph et al. 53 showed that in these types of situations, where there
are more parameters (sensitivity, specificity and disease prevalence) than
information from the data, Bayesian methods are able to provide estimates for these
measures.
Although the literature includes studies that used Bayesian hypothesis testing, the
main focus of the Bayesian method is estimating parameters and not hypothesis
testing. For example, given two hypotheses H1 and H2, a
Bayesian hypothesis test compares the probability of the observed data D given
H1, denoted by P(D|H1), and the probability of the
observed data D given H2, denoted by P(D|H2). The ratio BF =
P(D|H1)/P(D|H2) is the Bayes factor 54, which quantifies the evidence from data for
H1 in relation to H2. It should be noted that this
procedure is different from the traditional null hypothesis significance testing.
While the results of frequentist hypothesis tests are usually expressed as p-values,
the results of Bayesian hypothesis tests are expressed as Bayes factors. P-values
are difficult to interpret and are regularly misinterpreted by health researchers,
while Bayes factors are more easy to interpret.
Recent trends in Bayesian analysis
The following is non-exhaustive list of areas of epidemiological research which
should benefit from the use of Bayesian methods over the coming years.
Spatiotemporal modeling
Ecological studies involve the description of the geographical distribution of a
disease or an event of interest and associated factors. In this context, spatial
autoregressive models have been extensively used in data analysis and a popular
modeling approach has been through the conditionally autoregressive (CAR)
distribution and their generalizations. These models are relatively flexible and
can accommodate different structures of spatial correlation and longitudinal
data, as well as the presence of covariates. The estimation of the parameters of
these models based on frequentist inference methods can be a difficult task due
to the complexity of the likelihood function, and Bayesian methods provide a
convenient alternative to deal with this model structure. This type of modeling
is facilitated by the use of the software OpenBUGS, that allows sample
simulation for CAR distribution and multivariate extension 55,56. In a broader sense, these spatiotemporal models
57 can be classified as a
type of hierarchical model. Multilevel or hierarchical models are useful for the
analysis of data structured in groups, which is common in epidemiological
studies.
Models based on distributions rather than normal curve
The use of models based on normal distribution is quite common in epidemiological
studies. There is a belief that nonparametric hypothesis testing should be used
when the normality assumption is not satisfied, but this is not necessarily true
due to the existence of generalized linear models (GLM), a very general class of
statistical models that includes many probability distributions. In addition,
traditional nonparametric tests only provide p-values, while measures of the
size of the association between groups are essential for epidemiological
research. The relationship between dependent discrete variables and explanatory
variables can be explored by using models based on Poisson, binomial, negative
binomial or beta-binomial distributions, depending on the amount of data
dispersion. Count data with excess zeros 58 and truncated data 59 are also common in epidemiological studies and
specific regression models are required to deal with this. Bayesian methods can
be very useful in these modeling applications, since they enable us to estimate
parameters and related measures of association in complex models or where
asymptotic assumptions are not appropriate due to sparse data or small sample
sizes.
Models for survival data based on more complex distribution
In epidemiological studies, parametric survival models are usually based on the
Weibull, lognormal or gamma distributions. Alternative distributions for
time-to-event data have been used by studies mentioned in the literature in
recent years, allowing the addition of a parameter representing the proportion
of individuals which are “immune” to the event of interest 60. These distributions are extensions of usual
distributions including a greater number of unknown parameters 61,62. Parameter estimation in
survival models based on these distributions can be challenging, especially when
covariates are involved, since asymptotic properties cannot be assured. Bayesian
analysis could be a promising alternative for this type of modeling because the
use of MCMC methods are capable of dealing with the complexity of the resulting
likelihood function.
Multivariate copula models
Copula functions 63 are tools
used to construct and simulate multivariate distributions. For example, copula
functions can be used to study the joint distribution of the successive survival
times 64, multiple dependent
diagnostic tests 65 or the
association of risk factors for two or more diseases simultaneously. Bayesian
methods can accommodate different copula functions and may therefore be useful
for many epidemiological investigations that use multivariate data.
Concluding remarks
Since Bayesian methods allows the incorporation of relevant prior knowledge or
beliefs into the analysis, the researcher is no longer just an observer in the
research process and his or her experience becomes an active component to obtain
inferences of interest. This in itself is often seen as a controversial aspect of
Bayesianism, since the traditional scientific method relies on a positivist approach
and has been proposed to avoid subjective analysis. The Bayesian method offers a
different way of thinking about research and we believe that it can make a valuable
contribution to the development of knowledge in a number of fields apart from
epidemiology.
From a statistical viewpoint, we believe that the major advantage of the Bayesian
approach is its extreme flexibility. The availability of MCMC methods allows the
analysis of a wide range of statistical models which could be applied to
epidemiologic research, such as hierarchical models, longitudinal models and more
complex models applied to specific design studies 66,67 or unusual data structures.
Currently, good Bayesian analysis software is available, such as OpenBugs, SAS and
several R software libraries. An important advantage of OpenBugs and R programs is
that they are freely available on the internet. However, the use of these programs
requires some knowledge of programming language. Therefore, researchers who are not
proficient in computer programming may have some difficulties with Bayesian
modeling, and this is an obstacle to popularizing Bayesian methods in
epidemiological research. This situation may also be aggravated by a lack of
professional statistical support in health research institutions.
Despite these potential difficulties, this study observed a sharp increase in the
number of studies using Bayesian methods and this trend looks set to continue. It
can therefore be concluded that epidemiologists, clinicians and health professions
students interested in a research career should receive appropriate training in
Bayesian methods to be able to deal with more complex problems.
Contributors
E. Z. Martinez and J. A. Achcar contributed to project design, the literature review
and writing and revision of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful to the editor and referees for their constructive
criticism and suggestions, which helped improve this paper. Both authors were
supported by fellowships from the CNPq.
References
1
. Bayes T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of
chances. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 1763; 53:370-418.
Bayes
T
An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine
of chances
Philos Trans R Soc Lond
1763
53
370
418
2
. Holland JD. The Reverend Thomas Bayes, F.R.S. (1702-61). J R Stat
Soc Series A 1962; 125:451-61.
Holland
JD
The Reverend Thomas Bayes, F.R.S.
(1702-61)
J R Stat Soc Series A
1962
125
451
461
3
. Bellhouse DR. The Reverend Thomas Bayes, FRS: a biography to
celebrate the tercentenary of his birth. Stat Sci 2004;19:3-43.
Bellhouse
DR
The Reverend Thomas Bayes, FRS: a biography to
celebrate the tercentenary of his birth
Stat Sci
2004
19
3
43
4
. Pomeroy RS. Hume on the testimony for miracles. Speech Monographs
1962; 29:1-12.
Pomeroy
RS
Hume on the testimony for miracles
Speech Monographs
1962
29
1
12
5
. Holder RD. Hume on miracles: Bayesian interpretation, multiple
testimony, and the existence of God. Br J Philos Sci 1998;
49:49-65.
Holder
RD
Hume on miracles: Bayesian interpretation, multiple
testimony, and the existence of God
Br J Philos Sci
1998
49
49
65
6
. Owen D. Hume versus Price on miracles and prior probabilities:
testimony and the Bayesian calculation. Phil Q 1987;
37:187-202.
Owen
D
Hume versus Price on miracles and prior
probabilities: testimony and the Bayesian calculation
Phil Q
1987
37
187
202
7
. Sobel JH. On the evidence of testimony for miracles: a Bayesian
interpretation of David Hume’s analysis. Phil Q 1987;
37:166-86.
Sobel
JH
On the evidence of testimony for miracles: a
Bayesian interpretation of David Hume’s analysis
Phil Q
1987
37
166
186
8
. Androutsopoulos I, Koutsias J, Chandrinos KV, Paliouras G,
Spyropoulos CD. An evaluation of naive Bayesian anti-spam filtering. In:
Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning in the New Information Age. 11th
European Conference on Machine Learning. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. p.
9-17.
Androutsopoulos
I
Koutsias
J
Chandrinos
KV
Paliouras
G
Spyropoulos
CD
An evaluation of naive Bayesian anti-spam
filtering
Proceedings of the Workshop on Machine Learning in the New
Information Age. 11th European Conference on Machine Learning
New York
Springer-Verlag
2000
9
17
9
. Pedersen L. Autonomous characterization of unknown environments.
IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 2001; 1:277-84.
Pedersen
L
Autonomous characterization of unknown
environments
IEEE
Int Conf Robot Autom
2001
1
277
284
10
. Pedersen L, Wagner M, Apostolopoulos D, Whittaker WR. Autonomous
robotic meteorite identification in Antarctica. IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 2001;
1:4158-65.
Pedersen
L
Wagner
M
Apostolopoulos
D
Whittaker
WR
Autonomous robotic meteorite identification in
Antarctica
IEEE
Int Conf Robot Autom
2001
1
4158
4165
11
. Halatci I, Brooks CA, Iagnemma K. Terrain classification and
classifier fusion for planetary exploration rovers. In: Proceedings of the
Aerospace Conference, 2007 IEEE. Big Sky: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers; 2007. p. 1-11.
Halatci
I
Brooks
CA
Iagnemma
K
Terrain classification and classifier fusion for planetary
exploration rovers
Proceedings of the Aerospace Conference
2007
IEEE
Big Sky: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
2007
1
11
12
. Jenkins CR, Peacock JA. The power of Bayesian evidence in
astronomy. Mon Not R Astron Soc 2011; 413:2895-905.
Jenkins
CR
Peacock
JA
The power of Bayesian evidence in
astronomy
Mon Not R Astron Soc
2011
413
2895
2905
13
. Koop G, Poirier DJ, Tobias JL. Bayesian econometric methods.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
Koop
G
Poirier
DJ
Tobias
JL
Bayesian econometric methods
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
2007
14
. Lancaster T. Introduction to modern Bayesian econometrics. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell; 2004.
Lancaster
T
Introduction to modern Bayesian econometrics
Oxford
Wiley-Blackwell
2004
15
. Rossi PE, Allenby GM. Bayesian statistics and marketing. Marketing
Science 2003; 22:304-28.
Rossi
PE
Allenby
GM
Bayesian statistics and marketing
Marketing Science
2003
22
304
328
16
. Makov UE. Principal applications of Bayesian methods in actuarial
science: a perspective. N Am Actuar J 2001; 5:53-7.
Makov
UE
Principal applications of Bayesian methods in
actuarial science: a perspective
N Am Actuar J
2001
5
53
57
17
. Edwards W, Lindman H, Savage LJ. Bayesian statistical inference
for psychological research. Psychol Rev 1963; 70:193-242.
Edwards
W
Lindman
H
Savage
LJ
Bayesian statistical inference for psychological
research
Psychol Rev
1963
70
193
242
18
. Beaumont MA, Rannala B. The Bayesian revolution in genetics. Nat
Rev Genet 2004; 5:251-61.
Beaumont
MA
Rannala
B
The Bayesian revolution in genetics
Nat Rev Genet
2004
5
251
261
19
. Shoemaker JS, Painter IS, Weir BS. Bayesian statistics in
genetics: a guide for the uninitiated. Trends Genet 1999;
15:354-8.
Shoemaker
JS
Painter
IS
Weir
BS
Bayesian statistics in genetics: a guide for the
uninitiated
Trends Genet
1999
15
354
358
20
. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F, Nielsen R, Bollback JP. Bayesian
inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 2001;
294:2310-4.
Huelsenbeck
JP
Ronquist
F
Nielsen
R
Bollback
JP
Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on
evolutionary biology
Science
2001
294
2310
2314
21
. Wilkinson DJ. Bayesian methods in bioinformatics and computational
systems biology. Brief Bioinform 2007; 8:109-16.
Wilkinson
DJ
Bayesian methods in bioinformatics and
computational systems biology
Brief Bioinform
2007
8
109
116
22
. Daponte BO, Kadane JB, Wolfson LJ. Bayesian demography: projecting
the Iraqi Kurdish population, 1977-1990. J Am Stat Assoc 1997;
92:1256-67.
Daponte
BO
Kadane
JB
Wolfson
LJ
Bayesian demography: projecting the Iraqi Kurdish
population, 1977-1990
J Am Stat Assoc
1997
92
1256
1267
23
. Jackman S. Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. New York:
John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
Jackman
S
Bayesian analysis for the social sciences
New York
John Wiley & Sons
2009
24
. Etzioni RD, Kadane JB. Bayesian statistical methods in public
health and medicine. Annu Rev Public Health 1995; 16:23-41.
Etzioni
RD
Kadane
JB
Bayesian statistical methods in public health and
medicine
Annu Rev Public Health
1995
16
23
41
25
. Gupta SK. Use of Bayesian statistics in drug development:
advantages and challenges. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2012;
2:3-6.
Gupta
SK
Use of Bayesian statistics in drug development:
advantages and challenges
Int J Appl Basic Med Res
2012
2
3
6
26
. Lewis RJ, Wears RL. An introduction to the Bayesian analysis of
clinical trials. Ann Emerg Med 1993; 22:1328-36.
Lewis
RJ
Wears
RL
An introduction to the Bayesian analysis of
clinical trials
Ann Emerg Med
1993
22
1328
1336
27
. Zhang X, Cutter G. Bayesian interim analysis in clinical trials.
Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29:751-5.
Zhang
X
Cutter
G
Bayesian interim analysis in clinical
trials
Contemp Clin Trials
2008
29
751
755
28
. Dunson DB. Commentary: practical advantages of Bayesian analysis
of epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 153:1222-6.
Dunson
DB
Commentary: practical advantages of Bayesian
analysis of epidemiologic data
Am J Epidemiol
2001
153
1222
1226
29
. Greenland S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research:
I. Foundations and basic methods. Int J Epidemiol 2006;
35:765-75.
Greenland
S
Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research:
I. Foundations and basic methods
Int J Epidemiol
2006
35
765
775
30
. Greenland S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research.
II. Regression analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36:195-202.
Greenland
S
Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research.
II. Regression analysis
Int J Epidemiol
2007
36
195
202
31
. Greenland S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiologic research:
III. Bias analysis via missing-data methods. Int J Epidemiol 2009;
38:1662-73.
Greenland
S
Bayesian perspectives for epidemiologic research:
III. Bias analysis via missing-data methods
Int J Epidemiol
2009
38
1662
1673
32
. Congdon P. Applied Bayesian modelling. New York: John Wiley &
Sons; 2003.
Congdon
P
Applied Bayesian modelling
New York
John Wiley & Sons
2003
33
. Moore DS. Bayes for beginners? Some reasons to hesitate. Am Stat
1997; 51:254-61.
Moore
DS
Bayes for beginners? Some reasons to
hesitate
Am Stat
1997
51
254
261
34
. Shuford Jr. EH. Some Bayesian learning processes. Tech Doc Rep U S
Air Force Syst Command Electron Syst Div 1963; 86:1-39.
Shuford
EH
Jr.
Some Bayesian learning processes
Tech Doc Rep U S Air Force Syst Command Electron Syst Div
1963
86
1
39
35
. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS: a Bayesian
modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 2000;
10:325-37.
Lunn
DJ
Thomas
A
Best
N
Spiegelhalter
D
WinBUGS: a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts,
structure, and extensibility
Stat Comput
2000
10
325
337
36
. Gelfand AE, Smith AF. Sampling-based approaches to calculating
marginal densities. J Am Statist Assoc 1990; 85:398-409.
Gelfand
AE
Smith
AF
Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal
densities
J Am Statist Assoc
1990
85
398
409
37
. Lykou A, Ntzoufras I. WinBUGS: a tutorial. WIREs Computational
Statistics 2001; 3:385-96.
Lykou
A
Ntzoufras
I
WinBUGS: a tutorial
WIREs Computational Statistics
2001
3
385
396
38
. Adamina M, Tomlinson G, Guller U. Bayesian statistics in oncology:
a guide for the clinical investigator. Cancer 2009;
115:5371-81.
Adamina
M
Tomlinson
G
Guller
U
Bayesian statistics in oncology: a guide for the
clinical investigator
Cancer
2009
115
5371
5381
39
. Basáñez MG, Marshall C, Carabin H, Gyorkos T, Joseph L. Bayesian
statistics for parasitologists. Trends Parasitol 2004;
20:85-91.
Basáñez
MG
Marshall
C
Carabin
H
Gyorkos
T
Joseph
L
Bayesian statistics for
parasitologists
Trends Parasitol
2004
20
85
91
40
. Casella G, Berger RL. Statistical inference. 2nd Ed.
Farmington Hills: Cengage Learning; 2001.
Casella
G
Berger
RL
Statistical inference
2
Farmington Hills
Cengage Learning
2001
41
. Cox DR. Principles of statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Cox
DR
Principles of statistical inference
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
2006
42
. Krishnamoorthy K. Handbook of statistical distributions with
applications. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2006.
Krishnamoorthy
K
Handbook of statistical distributions with
applications
Boca Raton
Chapman & Hall
2006
43
. Browne RH. Using the sample range as a basis for calculating
sample size in power calculations. Am Stat 2001; 55:293-8.
Browne
RH
Using the sample range as a basis for calculating
sample size in power calculations
Am Stat
2001
55
293
298
44
. O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH,
Jenkinson DJ, et al. Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’ probabilities.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
O’Hagan
A
Buck
CE
Daneshkhah
A
Eiser
JR
Garthwaite
PH
Jenkinson
DJ
et al
Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts’
probabilities
Chichester
John Wiley & Sons
2006
45
. Jeffreys H. An invariant form for the prior probability in
estimation problems. Proc R Soc A 1946; 186:453-61.
Jeffreys
H
An invariant form for the prior probability in
estimation problems
Proc R Soc A
1946
186
453
461
46
. Box GEP, Tiao GC. Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
Box
GEP
Tiao
GC
Bayesian inference in statistical analysis
New York
John Wiley & Sons
1992
47
. Gunel E, Wearden S. Bayesian estimation and testing of gene
frequencies. Theor Appl Genet 1995; 91:534-43.
Gunel
E
Wearden
S
Bayesian estimation and testing of gene
frequencies
Theor Appl Genet
1995
91
534
543
48
. Matawie KM, Assaf A. Bayesian and DEA efficiency modelling: an
application to hospital foodservice operations. J Appl Statist Sci 2010;
37:945-53.
Matawie
KM
Assaf
A
Bayesian and DEA efficiency modelling: an
application to hospital foodservice operations
J Appl Statist Sci
2010
37
945
953
49
. Smith AFM, Roberts GO. Bayesian computation via the Gibbs sampler
and related Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. J R Stat Soc Series B 1993;
55:3-23.
Smith
AFM
Roberts
GO
Bayesian computation via the Gibbs sampler and
related Markov chain Monte Carlo methods
J R Stat Soc Series B
1993
55
3
23
50
. Brooks S. Markov chain Monte Carlo method and its application. J R
Stat Soc Series D 1998; 47:69-100.
Brooks
S
Markov chain Monte Carlo method and its
application
J R Stat Soc Series D
1998
47
69
100
51
. Tanner MA, Wong WH. The calculation of posterior distributions by
data augmentation. J Am Statist Assoc 1987; 82:528-40.
Tanner
MA
Wong
WH
The calculation of posterior distributions by data
augmentation
J Am Statist Assoc
1987
82
528
540
52
. Everitt BS. The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. 3rd
Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
Everitt
BS
The Cambridge dictionary of statistics
3
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
2006
53
. Joseph L, Gyorkos TW, Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease
prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold
standard. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141:263-72.
Joseph
L
Gyorkos
TW
Coupal
L
Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the
parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold
standard
Am J Epidemiol
1995
141
263
272
54
. Masson MEJ. A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to
null-hypothesis significance testing. Behav Res Methods 2011;
43:679-90.
Masson
MEJ
A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to
null-hypothesis significance testing
Behav Res Methods
2011
43
679
690
55
. Branscum AJ, Perez AM, Johnson WO, Thurmond MC. Bayesian
spatiotemporal analysis of foot-and-mouth disease data from the Republic of
Turkey. Epidemiol Infect 2008; 136:833-42.
Branscum
AJ
Perez
AM
Johnson
WO
Thurmond
MC
Bayesian spatiotemporal analysis of foot-and-mouth
disease data from the Republic of Turkey
Epidemiol Infect
2008
136
833
842
56
. Roza DL, Caccia-Bava MC, Martinez EZ. Spatio-temporal patterns of
tuberculosis incidence in Ribeirão Preto, State of São Paulo, southeast Brazil,
and their relationship with social vulnerability: a Bayesian analysis. Rev Soc
Bras Med Trop 2012; 45:607-15.
Roza
DL
Caccia-Bava
MC
Martinez
EZ
Spatio-temporal patterns of tuberculosis incidence
in Ribeirão Preto, State of São Paulo, southeast Brazil, and their
relationship with social vulnerability: a Bayesian analysis
Rev Soc Bras Med Trop
2012
45
607
615
57
. Banerjee S, Gelfand AE, Carlin BP. Hierarchical modeling and
analysis for spatial data. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2003.
Banerjee
S
Gelfand
AE
Carlin
BP
Hierarchical modeling and analysis for spatial
data
Boca Raton
CRC Press
2003
58
. Lewsey JD, Thomson WM. The utility of the zero-inflated Poisson
and zero-inflated negative binomial models: a case study of cross-sectional and
longitudinal DMF data examining the effect of socio-economic status. Community
Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004; 32:183-9.
Lewsey
JD
Thomson
WM
The utility of the zero-inflated Poisson and
zero-inflated negative binomial models: a case study of cross-sectional and
longitudinal DMF data examining the effect of socio-economic
status
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol
2004
32
183
189
59
. Brookmeyer R, Blades N, Hugh-Jones M, Henderson DA. The
statistical analysis of truncated data: application to the Sverdlovsk anthrax
outbreak. Biostatistics 2001; 2:233-47.
Brookmeyer
R
Blades
N
Hugh-Jones
M
Henderson
DA
The statistical analysis of truncated data:
application to the Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak
Biostatistics
2001
2
233
247
60
. Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Sinha D. Bayesian inference for multivariate
survival data with a cure fraction. J Multivar Anal 2002;
80:101-26.
Chen
MH
Ibrahim
JG
Sinha
D
Bayesian inference for multivariate survival data
with a cure fraction
J Multivar Anal
2002
80
101
126
61
. Carrasco JMF, Ortega EMM, Cordeiro GM. A generalized modified
Weibull distribution for lifetime modeling. Comput Stat Data Anal 2008;
53:450-62.
Carrasco
JMF
Ortega
EMM
Cordeiro
GM
A generalized modified Weibull distribution for
lifetime modeling
Comput Stat Data Anal
2008
53
450
462
62
. Barreto-Souza W, Morais AL. The Weibull-geometric distribution. J
Stat Comput Simul 2011; 81:645-57.
Barreto-Souza
W
Morais
AL
The Weibull-geometric distribution
J Stat Comput Simul
2011
81
645
657
63
. Nelsen RB. An introduction to copulas. New York: Springer-Verlag;
1999.
Nelsen
RB
An introduction to copulas
New York
Springer-Verlag
1999
64
. Romeo JS, Tanaka NI, Pedroso-de-Lima AC. Bivariate survival
modeling: a Bayesian approach based on copulas. Lifetime Data Anal 2006;
12:205-22.
Romeo
JS
Tanaka
NI
Pedroso-de-Lima
AC
Bivariate survival modeling: a Bayesian approach
based on copulas
Lifetime Data Anal
2006
12
205
222
65
. Tovar JR, Achcar JA. Dependence between two diagnostic tests with
copula function approach: a simulation study. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2013;
42:454-75.
Tovar
JR
Achcar
JA
Dependence between two diagnostic tests with copula
function approach: a simulation study
Commun Stat Simul Comput
2013
42
454
475
66
. Zelen M, Parker RA. Case-control studies and Bayesian inference.
Stat Med 1986; 5:261-9.
Zelen
M
Parker
RA
Case-control studies and Bayesian
inference
Stat Med
1986
5
261
269
67
. Ghosh M, Song J, Forster JJ, Mitra R, Mukherjee B. On the
equivalence of posterior inference based on retrospective and prospective
likelihoods: application to a case-control study of colorectal cancer. Stat Med
2012; 31:2196-208.
Ghosh
M
Song
J
Forster
JJ
Mitra
R
Mukherjee
B
On the equivalence of posterior inference based on
retrospective and prospective likelihoods: application to a case-control
study of colorectal cancer
Stat Med
2012
31
2196
2208
Erratum
A revista foi informada sobre um erro na equação que descreve o teorema de Bayes (p.
707). A equação correta é:
The journal has been informed of an error in the equation that describes the Bayes’
theorem (p. 707). The correct equation is:
La revista fue informada sobre un error en la ecuación que describe el teorema de Bayes
(p. 707). La ecuación correcta es:
A revista foi informada sobre um erro no oitavo parágrafo da seção A Practical
Example: Estimating Disease Prevalence (p. 707). O parágrafo correto é:
The journal has been informed of an error in the eighth paragraph of the section
A Practical Example: Estimating Disease Prevalence (p. 707). The
correct paragraph is:
La revista fue informada sobre un error en el octavo párrafo de la sección A
Practical Example: Estimating Disease Prevalence (p. 707). El párrafo
correcto es:
Let us suppose a sample of size n = 100 individuals from the population of interest, of
which 22 individuals have the disease in interest. The maximum likelihood estimate for
θ is given by 22/100 = 22%. Considering the Bayesian approach, the
posterior distribution for θ is proportional to
since a = 4.96, b = 23.45,
and n = 100. Thus,
f(Ө|x) follows a
beta distribution with parameters 26.96 and 101.45.
Autoria
Edson Zangiacomi Martinez
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.Universidade de São PauloBrasilRibeirão Preto, BrasilFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.
Jorge Alberto Achcar
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.Universidade de São PauloBrasilRibeirão Preto, BrasilFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.
CorrespondenceE. Z. MartinezFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São
Paulo.Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeirão Preto, SP 14049-900, Brasil.edson@fmrp.usp.br
Contributors
E. Z. Martinez and J. A. Achcar contributed to project design, the literature
review and writing and revision of this article.
SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.Universidade de São PauloBrasilRibeirão Preto, BrasilFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto,
Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.
Figure 1
Results of the search of PubMed for articles containing the term
Bayesian. The line shows the number of articles containing the term
Bayesian published each year divided by the total number de articles
indexed in that year (x 1,000).
Figure 2
Prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution
with parameters 4.96 and 23.45. The dashed line represents the mode of
the distribution (maximum value).
Figure 3
Comparison of prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta
distribution with parameters 4.96 and 23.45 (dashed line) with the
posterior distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45 (continuous line).
Figure 4
Posterior distribution for θ given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45, where the gray area describes a 95%
credible interval.
Table 1
Frequentist and Bayesian prevalence estimates (posterior means) based
on different sample sizes and choices of prior distribution for
θ.
imageFigure 1
Results of the search of PubMed for articles containing the term
Bayesian. The line shows the number of articles containing the term
Bayesian published each year divided by the total number de articles
indexed in that year (x 1,000).
open_in_new
imageFigure 2
Prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution
with parameters 4.96 and 23.45. The dashed line represents the mode of
the distribution (maximum value).
open_in_new
imageFigure 3
Comparison of prior probability distribution for θ, given by a beta
distribution with parameters 4.96 and 23.45 (dashed line) with the
posterior distribution for θ, given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45 (continuous line).
open_in_new
imageFigure 4
Posterior distribution for θ given by a beta distribution with
parameters 26.96 and 101.45, where the gray area describes a 95%
credible interval.
open_in_new
table_chartTable 1
Frequentist and Bayesian prevalence estimates (posterior means) based
on different sample sizes and choices of prior distribution for
θ.
Como citar
Martinez, Edson Zangiacomi e Achcar, Jorge Alberto. Tendências da epidemiologia no século XXI: é o tempo dos métodos bayesianos. Cadernos de Saúde Pública [online]. 2014, v. 30, n. 4 [Acessado 4 Abril 2025], pp. 703-714. Disponível em: <https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00144013>. ISSN 1678-4464. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00144013.
Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo CruzRua Leopoldo Bulhões, 1480 , 21041-210 Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil, Tel.:+55 21 2598-2511, Fax: +55 21 2598-2737 / +55 21 2598-2514 -
Rio de Janeiro -
RJ -
Brazil E-mail: cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br
rss_feed
Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.