Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Bayesian shape-constrained regression for quantifying Alzheimer's disease biomarker progression

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read S-shaped splines recover Alzheimer's biomarker progression order.

desk verdict Solid and useful shape-constrained spline method, but the applied temporal-ordering claim is weaker than the abstract implies because heterogeneity is intercept-only and the shared inflection index is imposed a priori. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05700 v1 pith:ETHJOYTO submitted 2025-05-09 stat.AP stat.ME

Mingyuan Li , Zheyu Wang , Akihiko Nishimura This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62G0862F1562P10
keywords shape-constrainedregressionmonotonesplineS-shapedcurvesBayesianhierarchicalmodelAlzheimer'sdiseasebiomarkerstemporalorderingBIOCARDinflectionpoint
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Alzheimer's disease biomarker trajectories are best quantified as S-shaped curves of age: monotonically increasing, with one turning point where the change is fastest, and flattening at both early and late ages. The authors build a Bayesian spline regression that enforces these three shape constraints directly on the spline coefficients, and show in simulations that when the true progression is asymmetric the constrained model estimates the curve and its milestone ages more accurately than either a logistic parametric curve or an unconstrained monotone spline. Applied to the BIOCARD longitudinal study, the model estimates that cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers turn first, MRI measures of brain structure second, and cognitive tests last, matching the scientific hypothesis known as the Jack model. The value of the paper is a middle path between rigid parametric curves and overly flexible nonparametric ones, with interpretable milestones and quantified uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The central object is an S-shaped regression spline $f(t)=\sum_{m=1}^{M} \gamma_m I_m(t)$ built from integrated quadratic B-spline bases $I_m(t)$. Three coefficient constraints carry the argument: non-negative coefficients $\gamma_m$ ensure monotone increase; an inflection index $m^*$ with $\gamma_1 \le \cdots \le \gamma_{m^*} \ge \cdots \ge \gamma_M$ makes the derivative unimodal, giving exactly one inflection point; and boundary coefficients $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_{M-1}, \gamma_M$ are set to zero with a Planck-taper window penalty, sending the derivative to zero at both ends. The Bayesian hierarchical version adds subject-level random intercepts and estimates a shared inflection index for each group of biomarkers, with posterior inference via a Gibbs sampler using truncated multivariate Gaussian draws and multivariate normal probability computations.

What would settle it

Refit the BIOCARD analysis with each biomarker allowed its own inflection index instead of one shared per category; if the posterior credible intervals for inflection ages within any category separate by several years, the shared-index constraint that shapes the paper's within-category ordering would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding two scientifically motivated constraints to monotone regression splines—vanishing derivative at the boundaries and a unique inflection point—turns the spline into an interpretable S-shaped curve without sacrificing the flexibility needed to capture asymmetric progression. The paper develops this shape-constrained spline in a Bayesian hierarchical model with subject-level random intercepts, and fits it to eleven BIOCARD biomarkers. Its key finding is the estimated temporal ordering: CSF biomarkers reach their 50% thresholds and inflection points earliest, followed by MRI biomarkers, with cognitive tests last; this ordering is consistent with the Jack hypothesis and overlaps sensibly with the age distributions of symptom onset and dementia diagnosis. In simulation, the S-shaped model recovers the true curve, inflection point, and 50% threshold with lower error than the logistic model when the true curve is asymmetric, while the unconstrained monotone spline performs poorly because it cannot represent early and late plateaus and over-extrapolates outside the observed age range.

Load-bearing premise

All biomarkers within a category are forced to share the same inflection index, so within-category differences in when the fastest change occurs are assumptions built into the model rather than findings learned from the data, and no sensitivity analysis for this choice is provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Posterior samples give full uncertainty quantification for milestone ages (50% threshold and inflection point), so the temporal ordering of biomarkers can be stated with credible intervals rather than point estimates.
  • When the true curve is asymmetric, the S-shaped spline estimates milestones with lower error and better coverage than the logistic model, which shows severe inflection-point bias under misspecification.
  • The unconstrained monotone spline fails to plateau at early and late ages and extrapolates badly outside the observed age range, so shape constraints are needed for reliable estimation of biomarker progressions with short follow-up.
  • The BIOCARD estimates place CSF biomarkers first, MRI second, and cognitive biomarkers last in both milestones, consistent with the Jack model's hypothesized progression order.
  • Because the method only requires S-shaped trajectories, it can be applied, with modifications, to other neurodegenerative diseases whose motor, cognitive, or psychiatric signs follow similar curves.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same S-shaped spline could be coupled with a latent disease-progression time that shifts and stretches each individual's curve, so that heterogeneity in onset and progression rate is modeled rather than only baseline levels; this would address a limitation the paper leaves open.
  • A direct test of the plateau assumption would come from longer follow-up: if biomarkers keep declining slowly after the plateau age, the zero-boundary-derivative constraint would bias late-life estimates, and the bias could be detected by out-of-sample prediction on late ages.
  • The method's transfer to Parkinson's and Huntington's disease is plausible, but those disorders may have different asymmetry directions and plateau structures, so the Planck-taper window and boundary choices would need recalibration.
  • A natural robustness check is to vary the spline knot boundaries—the paper shows wider boundaries improve coverage under asymmetric truth—and to report whether the estimated biomarker ordering persists across those choices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Bayesian shape-constrained spline regression model for Alzheimer's disease biomarker trajectories. The method builds on monotone regression splines and adds two constraints: a unique inflection point (imposed through unimodality of the spline coefficients) and a vanishing derivative at the boundaries. The model is fitted with a Gibbs sampler that handles the constrained parameter space. The authors evaluate the approach in a simulation study against a parametric logistic model and an unconstrained monotone spline model, and then apply it to BIOCARD data with eleven biomarkers in three categories. The main applied claim is that the estimated curves reveal a temporal ordering consistent with current hypotheses, with CSF biomarkers changing before MRI biomarkers, which change before cognitive biomarkers.

Significance. If the method is sound, it provides a useful semi-parametric tool for modeling S-shaped biomarker trajectories with interpretable milestones, and it could generalize to other neurodegenerative diseases. The paper's strengths include a novel combination of shape constraints, a full Bayesian fitting procedure with careful attention to constrained sampling, a simulation study that benchmarks against both parametric and overly flexible alternatives, and publicly available code. The real-data analysis demonstrates the method's ability to produce clinically coherent ordering, and the simulation results support the advantage of the S-shaped model over unconstrained monotone splines, particularly for asymmetric true curves. However, the significance is tempered by three concerns: the credible intervals show poor frequentist coverage, the subject-level heterogeneity is limited to additive intercepts, and the within-category shared inflection index is an untested assumption with potential impact on the real-data conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (3.6), Section 6] The applied temporal-ordering conclusion is not securely established because the model accounts for subject heterogeneity only through additive intercepts omega_ik. The paper itself (Section 6) defers modeling of between-subject variation in disease onset and progression rate to future work. If individual biomarker trajectories are S-shaped in time since onset rather than in age, pooling subjects by chronological age with only intercept shifts can produce a population-level curve whose inflection point and 50% threshold are mixture artifacts, not biologically meaningful milestones. The simulation study (Section 4.1) generates data from model (3.6) and therefore cannot validate the milestone estimates under realistic onset heterogeneity. I recommend either adding a simulation that includes subject-specific onset/rate shifts or substantially tempering the claim that the BIOCARD ordering is a validated scientific finding.
  2. [Table 1, Section 4.2] The S-shaped model's 95% credible intervals severely under-cover the true curve: 62-69% under flogit and 55-69% under fasym, with the worst values at the recommended wider boundary [0,120]. The intervals also over-cover the milestones (100% for flogit). This contradicts the stated advantage in Section 2.5 of Bayesian uncertainty quantification and is not explained or remedied in the paper. I would like the authors to investigate the source of the miscalibration (for example, the informative prior on the penalty parameters or the hard boundary constraints) and to report either adjusted intervals, a sensitivity analysis, or a clear discussion of why the under-coverage is acceptable.
  3. [Section 3.2, Section 4.1] All biomarkers within the same category are forced to share the same inflection index m* in Equation (2.3). The simulation study uses a single biomarker and therefore never exercises this group-level constraint. The real-data curves and their milestones can be directly affected by this assumption, yet no sensitivity analysis is provided (for example, allowing biomarker-specific m* or different category groupings). The paper should at least discuss the implications of this constraint and ideally provide a sensitivity check, since the within-category ordering claim is not the focus but the constraint may influence the estimated category-level curves.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript uses 'ad' interchangeably with 'Alzheimer's disease' and 'biocard' for 'BIOCARD'; please normalize these to standard capitalization for readability.
  2. [Section 4.1] The simulation description says 'the baseline biomarker value omega_i' but the model in Eq. (3.6) defines omega_ik; since the simulation has a single biomarker, please clarify the notation and state that the subscript k is dropped.
  3. [Supplement S2] The prior written for (sigma_s^2, sigma_v^2) appears to place an exponential prior on the variance parameters themselves rather than a half-normal prior on the standard deviations as described in Section 3.2; please clarify the exact prior specification and its relation to the text.
  4. [Figure 2] The legend lists six MRI biomarkers but the plot and text refer to five; also the vertical bars for inflection points are difficult to distinguish across 11 overlapping curves. Consider enlarging the plot or using a separate panel per category.
  5. [Supplement S4] The learning-effect adjustment is estimated in a two-stage procedure, but the uncertainty in the learning-effect estimates is not propagated into the main analysis; this is worth mentioning as a limitation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S-shape is an assumed prior structure and the milestone ordering is estimated from data, with simulation as an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The S-shape constraints (monotonicity, unique inflection, vanishing derivative) are a priori modeling assumptions motivated by the Jack model, not quantities fitted from BIOCARD and then relabeled as findings. The milestones used for temporal ordering—the inflection point and 50% threshold—are guaranteed to exist by the constraints, but their numerical locations and relative ordering are free parameters estimated from the data; nothing in Equations (2.3), (2.5), or (3.7) forces CSF inflection points to precede MRI or cognitive inflection points. The simulation study provides an external benchmark: the truth curves flogit and fasym are specified independently of the fitted model, and the S-shaped model is evaluated by RMSE and coverage against those truths. The shared-inflection-index assumption within biomarker categories is a borrowing-of-strength constraint that could mask within-category milestone differences, but the paper's category-level ordering conclusion is not forced by that assumption. The only self-citation (Wang and others, 2020) appears in a general motivation sentence and is not load-bearing. The Discussion explicitly acknowledges the intercept-only heterogeneity limitation and proposes future latent-process modeling; that is a model-misspecification and bias concern, not a circular derivation. Under the strict reduction standard requiring an exhibited equation-level equivalence, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central outputs (temporal ordering, milestone ages, asymmetry) depend on a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters and on the S-shaped constraints themselves. The most consequential choices are the shared inflection index within categories, the extrapolated boundary plateaus, and the smoothing and knot parameters. These are all stated, but none is validated by independent data or a sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (6)
  • Beta-kernel smoothing bandwidth parameter ν = 10
    Controls spread of kernel-smoothed age distribution used to place spline knots (Supplement S1); chosen by hand and affects knot locations and hence curve estimates.
  • Number of spline basis functions M = 24
    Section 3.2; chosen to ensure flexibility; larger M changes flexibility and boundary penalty structure.
  • Spline domain [L,U] = [0, 120]
    Section 3.2 and Section 4; boundaries extend far beyond observed ages 50-90; the extrapolated plateaus determine the standardization in Equation (3.7).
  • Planck-taper window cutoff = 0.1M'
    Section 2.4; defines which spline coefficients receive full prior variance; chosen without a data-driven criterion.
  • Half-normal prior scale for sigma_s and sigma_v = (M-4)^-1 = 1/20
    Section 3.2; chosen to match unit-variance biomarkers; sets global smoothness and boundary penalty strength.
  • Learning-effect window = 3 years
    Supplement S4; assumes learning effects occur over first three annual visits; affects cognitive biomarker pre-processing.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Biomarker abnormality increases monotonically with age (γm ≥ 0).
    Section 2.2; signs chosen so higher values mean more abnormality; excludes non-monotone or recovery trajectories.
  • domain assumption Each biomarker trajectory has exactly one inflection point.
    Section 2.3 and Equation (2.3); imposes derivative unimodality, reflecting the Jack model's nonlinear evolution.
  • domain assumption Derivative vanishes at the boundaries; biomarkers plateau at early and late stages.
    Section 2.4 and Equation (2.4); hard constraints γ1=γ2=γM-1=γM=0 plus soft penalties force plateaus at ages 0 and 120, outside observed data.
  • ad hoc to paper All biomarkers within the same category share the same inflection index.
    Section 3.2; used to borrow information and directly shapes within-category temporal ordering; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • domain assumption Population-level curves are meaningful over [0,120] and kernel-smoothed knot placement is valid.
    Section 3.2 and Supplement S1; no biomarker data observed outside 50-90 in BIOCARD; extrapolation is prior-driven.
  • domain assumption Between-subject heterogeneity is captured by baseline random intercepts only.
    Equation (3.6); subject-specific onset times and progression rates are not modeled, despite large variation in symptom onset ages noted in Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian shape-constrained regression for quantifying Alzheimer's disease biomarker progression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETHJOYTO

@misc{pith2026250505700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian shape-constrained regression for quantifying Alzheimer's disease biomarker progression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETHJOYTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05700}
}
read the original abstract

Several biomarkers are hypothesized to indicate early stages of Alzheimer's disease, well before the cognitive symptoms manifest. Their precise relations to the disease progression, however, is poorly understood. This lack of understanding limits our ability to diagnose the disease and intervene effectively at early stages. To provide better understanding of the relation between the disease and biomarker progressions, we propose a novel modeling approach to quantify the biomarkers' trajectories as functions of age. Building on monotone regression splines, we introduce two additional shape constraints to incorporate structures informed by the current medical literature. First, we impose the regression curves to satisfy a vanishing derivative condition, reflecting the observation that changes in biomarkers generally plateau at early and late stages of the disease. Second, we enforce the regression curves to have a unique inflection point, which enhances interpretability of the estimated disease progression and facilitates assessment of temporal ordering among the biomarkers. We fit our shape-constrained regression model under Bayesian framework to take advantage of its ability to account for the heterogeneity in disease progression among individuals. When applied to the BIOCARD data, the model is able to capture asymmetry in the biomarkers' progressions while maintaining interpretability, yielding estimates of the curves with temporal ordering consistent with the existing scientific hypotheses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of curves satisfying either the monotonicity, vanishing derivative, or unique inflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior estimates along with point-wise 95% credible intervals of standardized biomarker pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spaghetti plots of the longitudinal progressions of selected biomarkers in the standardized scale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION b...

  3. [3]

    Dirk and Larson, Eric B

    Aiello Bowles, Erin J., Crane, Paul K., Walker, Rod L., Chubak, Jessica, LaCroix, Andrea Z., Anderson, Melissa L., Rosenberg, Dori, Keene, C. Dirk and Larson, Eric B. (2019, Apr). Cognitive resilience to A lzheimer’s disease pathology in the human brain. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease\/ 68(3), 1071–1083

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Albert, Marilyn, Soldan, Anja, Gottesman, Rebecca, McKhann, Guy, Sacktor, Ned, Farrington, Leonie, Grega, Maura, Turner, Raymond, Lu, Yi, Li, Shanshan and others . (2014). Cognitive changes preceding clinical symptom onset of mild cognitive impairment and relationship to apoe genotype. Current Alzheimer Research\/ 11(8), 773--784

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Antoniano-Villalobos, Isadora, Wade, Sara and Walker, Stephen G . (2014). A bayesian nonparametric regression model with normalized weights: a study of hippocampal atrophy in alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 109(506), 477--490

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Bornkamp, Björn and Ickstadt, Katja . (2009). Bayesian nonparametric estimation of continuous monotone functions with applications to dose–response analysis. Biometrics\/ 65(1), 198--205

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Chandra, Avinash, Dervenoulas, George, Politis, Marios and Initiative, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging . (2019). Magnetic resonance imaging in alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology\/ 266, 1293--1302

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    de Oliveira, Rafaela Sanches, Trezza, Beatriz Maria, Busse, Alexandre Leopold and Jacob-Filho, Wilson . (2014). Learning effect of computerized cognitive tests in older adults. Einstein\/ 12(2), 149

    work page 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Eilers, Paul HC and Marx, Brian D . (1996). Flexible smoothing with B -splines and penalties. Statistical Science\/ 11(2), 89--121

    1996

  2. [10]

    Gauthier, Serge, Albert, Marilyn, Fox, Nick, Goedert, Michel, Kivipelto, Miia, Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge and Middleton, Lefkos T . (2016). Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades? A lzheimer's & Dementia\/ 12(1), 60--64

    2016

  3. [11]

    Gelman, Andrew . (2006). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by browne and draper). Bayesian Analysis\/ 1(3), 515--534

    2006

  4. [12]

    Genz, Alan . (1992). Numerical computation of multivariate normal probabilities. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics\/ 1(2), 141--149

    1992

  5. [13]

    Gunn, Laura H and Dunson, David B . (2005). A transformation approach for incorporating monotone or unimodal constraints. Biostatistics\/ 6(3), 434--449

    2005

  6. [14]

    J., Becker, J

    Huff, F. J., Becker, J. T., Belle, S. H., Nebes, R. D., Holland, A. L. and Boller, F. (1987). Cognitive deficits and clinical diagnosis of A lzheimer's disease. Neurology\/ 37(7), 1119--1119

    1987

  7. [15]

    Jack, Clifford R, Knopman, David S, Jagust, William J, Petersen, Ronald C, Weiner, Michael W, Aisen, Paul S, Shaw, Leslie M, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Wiste, Heather J, Weigand, Stephen D and others . (2013). Tracking pathophysiological processes in A lzheimer's disease: an updated ...

    2013

  8. [16]

    Jack, Clifford R, Knopman, David S, Jagust, William J, Shaw, Leslie M, Aisen, Paul S, Weiner, Michael W, Petersen, Ronald C and Trojanowski, John Q . (2010). Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the A lzheimer's pathological cascade. The Lancet Neurology\/ 9(1), 119--128

    2010

  9. [17]

    Jaeger, Judith . (2018). Digit symbol substitution test: the case for sensitivity over specificity in neuropsychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology\/ 38(5), 513

    2018

  10. [18]

    Jedynak, Bruno M, Lang, Andrew, Liu, Bo, Katz, Elyse, Zhang, Yanwei, Wyman, Bradley T, Raunig, David, Jedynak, C Pierre, Caffo, Brian, Prince, Jerry L and others . (2012). A computational neurodegenerative disease progression score: method and results with the A lzheimer's dis...

    2012

  11. [19]

    Koedam, Esther LGE, Lauffer, Vivian, Van Der Vlies, Annelies E, Van Der Flier, Wiesje M, Scheltens, Philip and Pijnenburg, Yolande AL . (2010). Early-versus late-onset A lzheimer's disease: more than age alone. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease\/ 19(4), 1401--1408

    2010

  12. [20]

    o llmann, Claudia, Bornkamp, Bj \

    K \"o llmann, Claudia, Bornkamp, Bj \"o rn and Ickstadt, Katja . (2014). Unimodal regression using B ernstein- S choenberg splines and penalties. Biometrics\/ 70(4), 783--793

    2014

  13. [21]

    Koval, Igor, Dighiero-Brecht, Thomas, Tobin, Allan J, Tabrizi, Sarah J, Scahill, Rachael I, Tezenas du Montcel, Sophie, Durrleman, Stanley and Durr, Alexandra . (2022). Forecasting individual progression trajectories in H untington disease enables more powered clinical trials....

    2022

  14. [22]

    (2017, 07)

    Lawrence, Emma, Vegvari, Carolin, Ower, Alison, Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos, de Wolf, Frank and Anderson, Roy . (2017, 07). A systematic review of longitudinal studies which measure A lzheimer’s disease biomarkers. Journal of A lzheimer's Disease\/ 59, 1--21

    2017

  15. [23]

    Li, Dan, Iddi, Samuel, Thompson, Wesley K, Donohue, Michael C and Initiative, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging . (2019). Bayesian latent time joint mixed effect models for multicohort longitudinal data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research\/ 28(3), 835--845

    2019

  16. [24]

    Li, Xiaoxia, Bilen-Green, Canan, Farahmand, Kambiz and Langley, Linda . (2018). A semiparametric method for estimating the progression of cognitive decline in dementia. IISE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering\/ 8(4), 303--314

    2018

  17. [25]

    Long, Jeffery D, Paulsen, Jane S, Marder, Karen, Zhang, Ying, Kim, Ji-In, Mills, James A and of the PREDICT-HD H untington's Study Group, Researchers . (2014). Tracking motor impairments in the progression of H untington's disease. Movement Disorders\/ 29(3), 311--319

    2014

  18. [26]

    (2010, April)

    McKechan, D J A, Robinson, C and Sathyaprakash, B S . (2010, April). A tapering window for time-domain templates and simulated signals in the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing compact binaries. Classical and Quantum Gravity\/ 27(8), 084020

    2010

  19. [27]

    Miller, David L . (2019). Bayesian views of generalized additive modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01330\/

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Neelon, Brian and Dunson, David B . (2004). Bayesian isotonic regression and trend analysis. Biometrics\/ 60(2), 398--406

    2004

  21. [29]

    Pakman, Ari and Paninski, Liam . (2014). Exact H amiltonian M onte C arlo for truncated multivariate gaussians. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics\/

    2014

  22. [30]

    Ramsay, James O . (1988). Monotone regression splines in action. Statistical Science\/ , 425--441

    1988

  23. [31]

    Ruppert, David, Wand, M. P. and Carroll, R. J. (2003). Semiparametric Regression\/ , Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press

    2003

  24. [32]

    Stan Development Team . (2024). RStan : the R interface to Stan . R package version 2.32.6

    2024

  25. [33]

    Vu, Thuy C, Nutt, John G and Holford, Nicholas HG . (2012). Progression of motor and nonmotor features of parkinson's disease and their response to treatment. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology\/ 74(2), 267--283

    2012

  26. [34]

    Wang, Zheyu, Tang, Zhuojun, Zhu, Yuxin, Pettigrew, Corinne, Soldan, Anja, Gross, Alden and Albert, Marilyn . (2020). AD risk score for the early phases of disease based on unsupervised machine learning. A lzheimer's & Dementia\/ 16(11), 1524--1533

    2020

  27. [35]

    Wegman, Edward J and Wright, Ian W . (1983). Splines in statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 78(382), 351--365

    1983

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Zhenyu, Chin, Andrew, Nishimura, Akihiko and Suchard, Marc A . (2022). hdtg: an r package for high-dimensional truncated normal simulation. ar X iv:2210.01097\/

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Roberts, Gareth O and Rosenthal, Jeffrey S . (2009). Examples of adaptive MCMC . Journal of C omputational and G raphical S tatistics\/ 18(2), 349--367

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.