A comparison of prior elicitation aggregation using the classical method and SHELF

Subjective Bayesian prior distributions elicited from experts can be aggregated together to form group priors. This paper compares aggregated priors formed by equal weight aggregation, the classical method and the Sheffield elicitation framework to each other and individual expert priors, using an expert elicitation carried out for a clinical trial. Aggregation methods and individual expert prior distributions are compared using proper scoring rules to compare the informativeness and calibration of the distributions. The three aggregation methods outperform the individual experts, and the Sheffield elicitation framework performs best among them.

Automated summary

This study compares aggregated prior distributions formed by different methods with individual expert priors, finding that the Sheffield elicitation framework performs the best among them.