# Publication bias and selection models with baggr

#### Witold Wiecek

#### 2026-06-14

This vignette shows a short worked example of assessing and adjusting for publication bias in a meta-analysis using baggr. It assumes that users are already familiar with publication bias, funnel plots, and selection models.

# Data

We use the vitamin A supplementation and child mortality data from Imdad et al. (2022), included in baggr as `vitamin_a`.

For this example, the outcome is the log risk ratio for all-cause child mortality. Negative values indicate lower mortality in the vitamin A supplementation arm.

    head(vitamin_a)
    #>            group     tau      se
    #> 1   Agarwal 1995  0.1972 0.31210
    #> 2   Barreto 1994  0.0000 0.99840
    #> 3      Benn 1997 -0.7763 0.59370
    #> 4 Chowdhury 2002 -1.9419 0.75420
    #> 5  Daulaire 1992 -0.3011 0.14990
    #> 6     DEVTA 2013 -0.0408 0.03726
    summary(exp(vitamin_a$tau))
    #>    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max.
    #>  0.1434  0.4600  0.7175  0.6885  0.9525  1.2180

See `?vitamin_a` for more information.

The studies are heterogeneous and vary substantially in precision.

First fit the usual Rubin summary-data model. We label the estimand as a log risk ratio so that plots and summaries are easier to read.

    bg_va <- baggr(vitamin_a, effect = "log risk ratio")

    bg_va
    #> Model type: Rubin model with aggregate data
    #> Pooling of effects: partial
    #>
    #> Aggregate treatment effect (on log risk ratio), 18 groups:
    #> Hypermean (tau) =  -0.29 with 95% interval -0.49 to -0.12
    #> Hyper-SD (sigma_tau) = 0.25 with 95% interval 0.11 to 0.48
    #> Posterior predictive effect = -0.29 with 95% interval -0.84 to 0.25
    #> Total pooling (1 - I^2) = 0.331 with 95% interval 0.094 to 0.688
    #>
    #> Group-specific treatment effects:
    #>                        mean    sd  2.5%    50%   97.5% pooling
    #> Agarwal 1995         -0.101 0.196 -0.46 -0.112  0.3457   0.626
    #> Barreto 1994         -0.263 0.262 -0.79 -0.264  0.2723   0.935
    #> Benn 1997            -0.378 0.250 -0.95 -0.346  0.0385   0.843
    #> Chowdhury 2002       -0.460 0.289 -1.15 -0.420 -0.0073   0.893
    #> Daulaire 1992        -0.289 0.120 -0.52 -0.288 -0.0590   0.315
    #> DEVTA 2013           -0.048 0.037 -0.12 -0.049  0.0293   0.034
    #> Dibley 1996          -0.305 0.280 -0.86 -0.301  0.2161   0.974
    #> Donnen 1998          -0.328 0.233 -0.81 -0.323  0.1079   0.786
    #> Fisker 2014          -0.144 0.145 -0.42 -0.144  0.1517   0.377
    #> Herrera 1992         -0.031 0.121 -0.26 -0.038  0.1981   0.266
    #> Pant 1996            -0.425 0.173 -0.79 -0.413 -0.1186   0.479
    #> Rahmathullah 1990    -0.533 0.190 -0.94 -0.527 -0.1785   0.474
    #> Ross 1993 (health)   -0.495 0.266 -1.09 -0.475 -0.0453   0.774
    #> Ross 1993 (survival) -0.218 0.085 -0.38 -0.221 -0.0497   0.165
    #> Sommer 1986          -0.298 0.128 -0.55 -0.297 -0.0403   0.327
    #> Venkatrao 1996       -0.371 0.263 -0.94 -0.346  0.0968   0.870
    #> Vijayaraghavan 1990  -0.166 0.209 -0.57 -0.172  0.2741   0.605
    #> West 1991            -0.342 0.106 -0.56 -0.341 -0.1533   0.224

# Funnel plot

A funnel plot compares study-level effects with their standard errors. In the absence of small-study effects or unexplained heterogeneity, points should be roughly symmetric around the pooled estimate.

    funnel(bg_va)

plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-3

The dashed lines include both sampling uncertainty and the estimated between-study heterogeneity. If we fitted a fixed-effects model (`pooling = "full"`), the funnel shape would have been a triangle; partial pooling gives it more of a funnel shape.

# Selection adjustment

Selection models make the publication process explicit. The argument in Hedges (1992) is that publication selection changes the distribution of estimates we get to observe, not just our interpretation of a funnel plot. Andrews and Kasy (2019) frame the same problem in terms of relative publication probabilities for different regions of the test statistic. In baggr, if \(y_k\) is the reported estimate and \(s_k\) is its standard error, then \(z_k = y_k / s_k\), and the probability a study is observed can vary by the interval containing \(z_k\). The shorthand `selection = 1.96` fits a symmetric two-sided model, splitting studies at the usual 5 percent normal threshold, \(|z_k| = 1.96\).

The fitted selection parameters are relative publication probabilities. With one cut-point, baggr estimates one weight for \(|z_k| < 1.96\) and normalises the reference interval, \(|z_k| \ge 1.96\), to 1. For an observed study, the usual normal likelihood is multiplied by the weight for the interval containing \(z_k\). It is then divided by the model-implied probability that a result would be observed at all, summing over all z-intervals and their weights.

For the partial-pooling Rubin model this normalising term is calculated using the marginal distribution of the observed estimate, \(y_k \sim N(\mu + x_k^\top\beta, \tau^2 + s_k^2)\) when covariates are present, not by conditioning on the latent study effect. This matters because selection is a statement about which estimates enter the observed literature, not only about sampling variation around a fixed latent effect.

    bg_va_sel <- baggr(vitamin_a, selection = 1.96,
                       effect = "log risk ratio")

    bg_va_sel
    #> Model type: Rubin model with aggregate data and with selection on |z|
    #> Pooling of effects: partial
    #>
    #> Aggregate treatment effect (on log risk ratio), 18 groups:
    #> Hypermean (tau) =  -0.189 with 95% interval -0.419 to -0.056
    #> Hyper-SD (sigma_tau) = 0.155 with 95% interval 0.017 to 0.392
    #> Posterior predictive effect = -0.18 with 95% interval -0.69 to 0.16
    #> Total pooling (1 - I^2) = 0.57 with 95% interval 0.14 to 0.99
    #>
    #> Publication probability relative to |z| in (1.96, Inf):
    #> * |z| in (0, 1.96] = 0.39 with 95% interval 0.076 to 1.3
    #>
    #> Group-specific treatment effects:
    #>                        mean    sd  2.5%    50%   97.5% pooling
    #> Agarwal 1995         -0.106 0.153 -0.42 -0.107  0.2229    0.80
    #> Barreto 1994         -0.184 0.198 -0.62 -0.160  0.1570    0.97
    #> Benn 1997            -0.230 0.203 -0.71 -0.194  0.0878    0.92
    #> Chowdhury 2002       -0.280 0.243 -0.91 -0.223  0.0390    0.95
    #> Daulaire 1992        -0.220 0.115 -0.47 -0.209 -0.0301    0.55
    #> DEVTA 2013           -0.052 0.038 -0.12 -0.053  0.0230    0.14
    #> Dibley 1996          -0.198 0.200 -0.74 -0.173  0.1104    0.99
    #> Donnen 1998          -0.209 0.185 -0.64 -0.182  0.1005    0.89
    #> Fisker 2014          -0.131 0.117 -0.36 -0.128  0.1047    0.61
    #> Herrera 1992         -0.051 0.102 -0.24 -0.058  0.1608    0.50
    #> Pant 1996            -0.289 0.174 -0.69 -0.262 -0.0273    0.69
    #> Rahmathullah 1990    -0.359 0.206 -0.81 -0.331 -0.0591    0.69
    #> Ross 1993 (health)   -0.302 0.233 -0.95 -0.251  0.0042    0.89
    #> Ross 1993 (survival) -0.189 0.089 -0.36 -0.188 -0.0256    0.38
    #> Sommer 1986          -0.230 0.127 -0.50 -0.219 -0.0291    0.56
    #> Venkatrao 1996       -0.239 0.208 -0.75 -0.189  0.0680    0.94
    #> Vijayaraghavan 1990  -0.135 0.147 -0.44 -0.131  0.1624    0.78
    #> West 1991            -0.268 0.112 -0.50 -0.265 -0.0768    0.45
    selection(bg_va_sel)
    #>
    #>              2.5%      mean    97.5%    median        sd
    #>   [1,] 0.07557633 0.3949767 1.250674 0.2857972 0.3230395

The `selection()` output reports the relative publication probability for the lower `|z|` interval. The highest `|z|` interval is the reference category, fixed to 1. Values below 1 mean that less statistically significant estimates are inferred to be less likely to appear in the observed literature.

More thresholds can be used. For example, the following model separates two-sided p-values below 10 percent, between 10 and 5 percent, between 5 and 1 percent, and beyond 1 percent.

    bg_va_sel_multi <- baggr(vitamin_a, selection = c(1.64, 1.96, 2.58),
                             effect = "log risk ratio")

    selection(bg_va_sel_multi)
    #>
    #>              2.5%      mean     97.5%    median        sd
    #>   [1,] 0.26542641 3.8077342 16.962890 2.2570909 5.5006254
    #>   [2,] 0.01009151 0.6323066  3.430887 0.2983701 0.9960486
    #>   [3,] 0.78571162 7.0774430 25.957450 4.8827424 7.1107018

For explicit control, users can pass a list with the z cut-points, whether the model is symmetric, and which studies could have been selected. Here the model uses one-sided z intervals. This is mainly useful when the direction of selection is part of the substantive assumption:

    selection_one_sided <- list(
      z = c(1.64, 1.96),
      symmetrical = FALSE,
      possible = rep(1, nrow(vitamin_a))
    )

    bg_va_sel_one_sided <- baggr(vitamin_a, selection = selection_one_sided,
                                 effect = "log risk ratio")

    selection(bg_va_sel_one_sided)
    #>
    #>             2.5%      mean     97.5%    median        sd
    #>   [1,] 0.3019088 18.687427 110.73318 4.6557837 73.989824
    #>   [2,] 0.0219042  2.247875  14.39896 0.6134501  4.920052

With only a modest number of studies, selection models can be weakly identified. In this example, the adjustment should be read as a sensitivity analysis for possible preferential publication of more statistically significant or favourable small-study estimates, not as definitive evidence about the exact publication process.

# References

Andrews, Isaiah, and Maximilian Kasy. 2019. “Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias.” American Economic Review 109 (8): 2766–94. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180310.
Hedges, Larry V. 1992. “Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis.” Statistical Science 7 (2): 246–55. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011364.
Imdad, Aamer, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Kurt Herzer, and Zulfiqar A. Bhutta. 2022. “Vitamin a Supplementation for Preventing Morbidity and Mortality in Children from Six Months to Five Years of Age.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 3: CD008524. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008524.pub4.