tPRiors: A tool for prior elicitation and obtaining posterior distributions of true disease prevalence

Background: Tests have false positive or false negative results, which, if not properly accounted for, may provide misleading apparent prevalence estimates based on the observed rate of positive tests and not the true disease prevalence estimates. Methods to estimate the true prevalence of disease, adjusting for the sensitivity and the specificity of the diagnostic tests are available and can be applied, though, such procedures can be cumbersome to researchers with or without a solid statistical background.Objective: To create a web-based application that integrates statistical methods for Bayesian inference of true disease prevalence based on prior elicitation for the accuracy of the diagnostic tests. This tool allows practitioners to simultaneously analyse and visualize results while using interactive sliders and output prior/posterior plots.Methods: Three methods for prevalence prior elicitation and four core families of Bayesian methods have been combined and incorporated in this web tool. |tPRiors| user interface has been developed with R and Shiny and may be freely accessed on-line.Results: |tPRiors| allows researchers to use preloaded data or upload their own datasets and perform analysis on either single or multiple population groups clusters), allowing, if needed, for excess zero prevalence. The final report is exported in raw parts either as .rdata or .png files. We utilize a real multiple-population and a toy single-population dataset to demonstrate the robustness and capabilities of |tPRiors|.Conclusions: We expect |tPRiors| to be helpful for researchers interested in true disease prevalence estimation and they are keen on accounting for prior information. |tPRiors| acts both as a statistical tool and a simplified step-by-step statistical framework that facilitates the use of complex Bayesian methods. The application of |tPRiors| is expected to aid standardization of practices in the field of Bayesian modelling on subject and multiple group-based true prevalence estimation.

Prior Elicitation for Use in Clinical Trial Design and Analysis: A Literature Review

Bayesian inference is increasingly popular in clinical trial design and analysis. The subjective knowledge derived from an expert elicitation procedure may be useful to define a prior probability distribution when no or limited data is available. This work aims to investigate the state-of-the-art Bayesian prior elicitation methods with a focus on clinical trial research. A literature search on the Current Index to Statistics (CIS), PubMed, and Web of Science (WOS) databases, considering “prior elicitation” as a search string, was run on 1 November 2020. Summary statistics and trend of publications over time were reported. Finally, a Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model was developed to recognise latent topics in the pertinent papers retrieved. A total of 460 documents pertinent to the Bayesian prior elicitation were identified. Of these, 213 (45.4%) were published in the “Probability and Statistics” area. A total of 42 articles pertain to clinical trial and the majority of them (81%) reports parametric techniques as elicitation method. The last decade has seen an increased interest in prior elicitation and the gap between theory and application getting narrower and narrower. Given the promising flexibility of non-parametric approaches to the experts’ elicitation, more efforts are needed to ensure their diffusion also in applied settings.

Expert Agreement in Prior Elicitation and its Effects on Bayesian Inference

Bayesian inference requires the specification of prior distributions that quantify the pre-data uncertainty about parameter values. One way to specify prior distributions is through prior elicitation, an interview method guiding field experts through the process of expressing their knowledge in the form of a probability distribution. However, prior distributions elicited from experts can be subject to idiosyncrasies of experts and elicitation procedures, raising the spectre of subjectivity and prejudice. Here, we investigate the effect of interpersonal variation in elicited prior distributions on the Bayes factor hypothesis test. We elicited prior distributions from six academic experts with a background in different fields of psychology and applied the elicited prior distributions as well as commonly used default priors in a re-analysis of 1710 studies in psychology. The degree to which the Bayes factors vary as a function of the different prior distributions is quantified by three measures of concordance of evidence: We assess whether the prior distributions change the Bayes factor direction, whether they cause a switch in the category of evidence strength, and how much influence they have on the value of the Bayes factor. Our results show that although the Bayes factor is sensitive to changes in the prior distribution, these changes rarely affect the qualitative conclusions of a hypothesis test. We hope that these results help researchers gauge the influence of interpersonal variation in elicited prior distributions in future psychological studies. Additionally, our sensitivity analyses can be used as a template for Bayesian robustness analyses that involves prior elicitation from multiple experts.