Researcher profile

Edgar Brunner

Edgar Brunner contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The nonparametric Behrens-Fisher problem in small samples

While there appears to be a general consensus in the literature on the definition of the estimand and estimator associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, it seems somewhat less clear as to how best to estimate the variance. In addition to the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, we review different proposals of variance estimators consistent under both the null hypothesis and the alternative. Moreover, in case of small sample sizes, an approximation of the distribution of the test statistic based on the t-distribution, a logit transformation and a permutation approach have been proposed. Focussing as well on different estimators of the degrees of freedom as regards the t-approximation, we carried out simulations for a range of scenarios, with results indicating that the performance of different variance estimators in terms of controlling the type I error rate largely depends on the heteroskedasticity pattern and the sample size allocation ratio, not on the specific type of distributions employed. By and large, a particular t-approximation together with Perme and Manevski's variance estimator best maintains the nominal significance level

preprint2020arXiv

Success-Odds: An improved Win-Ratio

Multiple and combined endpoints involving also non-normal outcomes appear in many clinical trials in various areas in medicine. In some cases, the outcome can be observed only on an ordinal or dichotomous scale. Then the success of two therapies is assessed by comparing the outcome of two randomly selected patients from the two therapy groups by &#39;better&#39;, &#39;equal&#39; or &#39;worse&#39;. These outcomes can be described by the probabilities $p^-=P(X<Y)$, $p_0=P(X=Y)$, and $p^+ =P(X~>~Y)$. For a clinician, however, these quantities are less intuitive. Therefore, Noether (1987) introduced the quantity $λ=p^+ / p^-$ assuming continuous distributions. The same quantity was used by Pocock et al. (2012) and by Wang and Pocock (2016) also for general non-normal outcomes and has been called &#39;win-ratio&#39; $λ_{WR}$. Unlike Noether (1987), Wang and Pocock (2016) explicitly allowed for ties in the data. It is the aim of this manuscript to investigate the properties of $λ_{WR}$ in case of ties. It turns out that it has the strange property of becoming larger if the data are observed less accurately, i.e. include more ties. Thus, in case of ties, the win-ratio looses its appealing property to describe and quantify an intuitive and well interpretable treatment effect. Therefore, a slight modification of $λ_{WR} = θ/ (1-θ)$ is suggested, namely the so-called &#39;success-odds&#39; where $θ=p^+ + \frac12 p_0$ is called a success of a therapy if $θ>\frac12$. In the case of no ties, $λ_{SO}$ is identical to $λ_{WR}$. A test for the hypothesis $λ_{SO}=1$ and range preserving confidence intervals for $λ_{SO}$ are derived. By two counterexamples it is demonstrated that generalizations of both the win-ratio and the success-odds to more than two treatments or to stratified designs are not straightforward and need more detailed considerations.