CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94Census and Population EstimationMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Validity of methods for model selection, weighting for model uncertainty, and small sample adjustment in capture-recapture estimation

Hook, E. B., Regal, R. R.·1997·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009077
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In log-linear capture-recapture approaches to population size, the method of model selection may have a major effect upon the estimate. In addition, the estimate may also be very sensitive if certain cells are null or very sparse, even with the use of multiple sources. The authors evaluated 1) various approaches to the issue of model uncertainty and 2) a small sample correction for three or more sources recently proposed by Hook and Regal. The authors compared the estimates derived using 1) three different information criteria that included Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) and two alternative formulations of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), one proposed by Draper ("two pi") and one by Schwarz ("not two pi"); 2) two related methods of weighting estimates associated with models; 3) the independent model; and 4) the saturated model, with the known totals in 20 different populations studied by five separate groups of investigators. For each method, we also compared the estimate derived with or without the proposed small sample correction. At least in these data sets, the use of AIC appeared on balance to be preferable. The BIC formulation suggested by Draper appeared slightly preferable to that suggested by Schwarz. Adjustment for model uncertainty appears to improve results slightly. The proposed small sample correction appeared to diminish relative log bias but only when sparse cells were present. Otherwise, its use tended to increase relative log bias. Use of the…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009077

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recall and reporting errors may have occurred, especially when remembering details of medical events such as treatments, procedures, and days lost from work.

    “Recall and reporting errors may have also occurred, especially when trying to remember the details of medical events (when did they occur, what were the costs), such as treatments, procedures, and days lost from work (41-43).”

    From Patients’ report on how endometriosis affects health, work, and daily life (2010) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hook, E. B., & Regal, R. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Hook, E. B.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1997-06-15
Volume
145
Issue
12
Pages
1138-1144
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009077
OpenAlex
W2165962753
Cited by
94
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (U83/CCU908694-02)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
mark-recapture, population size estimation, model selection, model uncertainty, model weighting, small sample correction, Akaike information criterion, Bayesian information criterion, log-linear models, multiple sources, saturated models, independent model
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Linear Models, Sample Size

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