Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2109.12141

ALL-IN meta-analysis: breathing life into living systematic reviews and prospective meta-analyses

Judith ter Schure·Peter Grünwald
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Science is justly admired as a cumulative process ("standing on the shoulders of giants"), yet scientific knowledge is typically built on a patchwork of research contributions without much coordination. This lack of efficiency has specifically been addressed in clinical research by recommendations against avoidable research waste and for living systematic reviews and prospective meta-analysis. We propose to further those recommendations with ALL-IN meta-analysis: Anytime Live and Leading INterim meta-analysis. ALL-IN provides meta-analysis based on e-values and anytime-valid confidence intervals that can be updated at any time - reanalyzing after each new observation while retaining type-I error and coverage guarantees, live - no need to prespecify the looks, and leading - in the decisions on whether individual studies should be initiated, stopped or expanded, the meta-analysis can be the leading source of information without losing validity to accumulation bias. The analysis design requires no information about the trial sample sizes or the number of trials eventually included. So ALL-IN meta-analysis can be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively, to evaluate the evidence once or sequentially. Because the intention of the analysis does not change the validity of the results, the results of the analysis can change the intentions ('optional stopping' and 'optional continuation' based on the results so far). On the one hand: any analysis can be turned into a living one, or even become prospective and real-time by updating with new trial data and including interim data from trials that are still ongoing - without any changes in the cut-offs for testing or the method for interval estimation. On the other hand: no stopping rule needs to be enforced for the analysis to remain valid, so a prospective meta-analysis can be a bottom-up collaboration [...]

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Judith ter Schure, Peter Grünwald. 2025-07-11. ALL-IN meta-analysis: breathing life into living systematic reviews and prospective meta-analyses. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.74223.2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗