Back

Meta-analysis as a barycenter of study distributions: information-geometric pooling, heterogeneity, and robustness

Otte, W. M.

2026-07-09 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.07.07.26357435 medRxiv
Show abstract

Meta-analysis usually reduces each study to an effect estimate with a standard error and pools these by inverse-variance weighting: fixed effect (FE), random effects (RE), or unrestricted weighted least squares (UWLS). We propose information-geometric meta-integration (IGMI), representing each study by its sampling distribution, the Gaussian N(theta_i, Sigma_i), and pooling studies as a weighted Frechet mean (barycenter) under Bures-Wasserstein (BW), Fisher-Rao, or Wasserstein-Fisher-Rao (WFR) geometry. In the scalar fixed-variance case the BW barycenter mean is exactly the FE estimate; the minimized Frechet functional reproduces the Higgins-Thompson I^2 and DerSimonian-Laird tau^2 heterogeneity statistics; and a Frechet-scatter pivot reproduces the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman interval at m = 1 and yields an exact Hotelling F(m, K-m) region for m outcomes under proportional total covariances. WFR adds a robust outlier-resistant pool: as its length scale delta grows without bound it converges monotonically to BW, whereas finite delta gives a redescending M-estimator with rejection point exactly pi*delta. Simulations show calibrated multivariate coverage at small K, where Wald intervals undercover, and strong resistance of the equal-weight WFR pool to contamination. In 2,445 Cochrane meta-analyses, WFR most often wins leave-one-out predictive scoring. In 835 bivariate meta-analyses, the closed-form BW barycenter matches REML multivariate meta-analysis predictively and is exactly invariant to the unreported within-study correlation, unlike the likelihood estimate.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.