Skip to content
 

“We’ve Got More Than One Model: Evaluating, comparing, and extending Bayesian predictions”

I was asked to speak at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Predictive Modeling Workshop, and a title was needed. This is what I came up with:

We’ve Got More Than One Model: Evaluating, comparing, and extending Bayesian predictions

It’s the Bayesian Workflow stuff we’ve been pushing for awhile. But I like this new title.

3 Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    “I was asked to speak at the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Predictive Modeling Workshop, and a title was needed. This is what I came up with: We’ve Got More Than One Model: Evaluating, comparing, and extending Bayesian predictions”

    I am looking for a pharmeceutical pun. Perhaps you could have called it:

    “This may be a hard pill to swallow for some, but we’ve got more than one model: Evaluating, comparing, and extending Bayesian predictions”

  2. Alex says:

    “Doctor, doctor, give me the news: I’ve got a bad case of having two (models to evaluate, compare, and extend in a Bayesian manner)”

  3. Anonymous says:

    “Should we take the blue or the red pill: Sticking to a single model, or creating and evaluating a matrix of multiple models”

Leave a Reply