Skip to main content
Log in

Bayesian methods for contingency tables using Gibbs sampling

  • Articles
  • Published:
Statistical Papers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cell counts in contingency tables can be smoothed using loglinear models. Recently, sampling-based methods such as Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) have been introduced, making it possible to sample from posterior distributions. The novelty of the approach presented here is that all conditional distributions can be specified directly, so that straight-forward Gibbs sampling is possible. Thus, the model is constructed in a way that makes burn-in and checking convergence a relatively minor issue. The emphasis of this paper is on smoothing cell counts in contingency tables, and not so much on estimation of regression parameters. Therefore, the prior distribution consists of two stages. We rely on a normal nonconjugate prior at the first stage, and a vague prior for hyperparameters at the second stage. The smoothed counts tend to compromise between the observed data and a log-linear model. The methods are demonstrated with a sparse data table taken from a multi-center clinical trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agresti, A. (1990).Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley.

  2. Agresti, A. (1996).An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley.

  3. Albert, J. and S. Chib (1997). Bayesian tests and model diagnostics in conditionally independent hierarchical models.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 92 916–925.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bishop, Y.M.M., S.E. Fienberg, and P.W. Holland (1975).Discrete Multivariate Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dellaportas, P. and A.F.M. Smith (1993). Bayesian inference for generalized linear and proportional hazards models via Gibbs sampling.Appl. Statist. 42 443–459.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Dempster, A.P., N.M. Laird, and D.B. Rubin (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion).J.R. Statist. Soc. B39 1–38.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Gilks, W.R. and P. Wild (1992). Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling.Appl. Statist. 41 337–348.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Laird, N.M. (1978). Empirical Bayes methods for two-way contingency tables.Biometrika 65 581–590

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Lawless, J.F. (1982).Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. Wiley.

  10. Leonard, T. and M.R. Novick (1986). Bayesian full rank marginalization for two-way contingency tables.Journal of Educational Statistics 11 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spiegelhalter, D.J., A. Thomas, N.G. Best, and W.R. Gilks (1997).BUGS: Bayesian inference Using Gibbs Sampling, Version 0.6 Cambridge: Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The research for the first author was supported by Brain Pool program of the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The research for the second author was partially supported by KOSEF through Statistical Research Center for Complex Systems at Seoul National University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, P.E., Park, T. Bayesian methods for contingency tables using Gibbs sampling. Statistical Papers 45, 33–50 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02778268

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02778268

Keywords

Navigation