The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bayesian Data Mining in Large Frequency Tables, with an Application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System
Abstract
A common data mining task is the search for associations in large databases. Here we consider the search for “interestingly large” counts in a large frequency table, having millions of cells, most of which have an observed frequency of 0 or 1. We first construct a baseline or null hypothesis expected frequency for each cell, and then suggest and compare screening criteria for ranking the cell deviations of observed from expected count. A criterion based on the results of fitting an empirical Bayes model to the cell counts is recommended. An example compares these criteria for searching the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System database maintained by the Division of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology. In the example, each cell count is the number of reports combining one of 1,398 drugs with one of 952 adverse events (total of cell counts = 4.9 million), and the problem is to screen the drug-event combinations for possible further investigation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001616 · Cited by 3,718
Lauritzen, S. L. (1996) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198522195.001.0001 · Cited by 2,976
The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables
Simpson, E. H. (1951) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00088.x · Cited by 2,301 · cited 1×
“jk = C N i j k of these variables’ mutual association with C; that is, one wants to avoid being misled by the well-known Simpson’s (1951) paradox.”
BackgroundData Mining: Statistics and More?
Hand, D. J. (1998) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1998.10480549 · Cited by 380
Cited by
Data-driven prediction of drug effects and interactions
Tatonetti, N. P., Ye, P. P., Daneshjou, R., & Altman, R. B. (2012) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003377 · Cited by 936
Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Shimabukuro, T. T., Nguyen, M., Martin, D., & DeStefano, F. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.07.035 · Cited by 608
Postlicensure Safety Surveillance for Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Recombinant Vaccine
Slade, B. A. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1201 · Cited by 470
Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery
Norén, G. N., Hopstadius, J., & Bate, A. (2013) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280211403604 · Cited by 336
Case-non-case studies: principle, methods, bias and interpretation
Faillie, J.-L. (2019) · Therapies · doi:10.1016/j.therap.2019.01.006 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Dumouchel, W.
- Venue
- The American Statistician
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 177-190
- ISSN
- 0003-1305 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2731
- OpenAlex
- W2039594635
- Cited by
- 878
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 17.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bayesian Data Mining in Large Frequency Tables, with an Application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00031305.1999.10474456
- The paper
- Dumouchel, W. (1999). Bayesian Data Mining in Large Frequency Tables, with an Application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. The American Statistician. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1999.10474456
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.