Researcher profile

Ludwig A. Hothorn

Ludwig A. Hothorn contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
10works
0followers
2topics
4close 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

10 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Evaluation of histological findings with severity grade, to analyze toxicology in-vivo studies

In-vivo toxicological studies are characterized by multiple primary endpoints with quite different scales. Whereas guidelines and publications provide various statistical tests for normally distributed endpoints (such as organ weights) and proportions (such as tumor rates), few approaches are available for graded histopathological findings, such as 0, +, ++, +++. This represents a basic contradiction of the statistical analysis because these graded findings sometimes show a high predictive value for potential toxic effects. Here we discuss different methods comparatively, especially from the viewpoints of i) designs for very small sample sizes and ii) interpretability by toxicologists. A new approach is recommended where a simultaneous test is performed over all class combinations of score levels, such as (0, +) vs (++, +++). Corresponding R code is provided by way of a data example.

preprint2022arXiv

Seven recommendations for alternatives to the common analysis of variance (ANOVA) with application in the life sciences -- using R

Standard ANOVA is among the most widely used tests in the life sciences and beyond. Several alternatives are proposed to provide simultaneous confidence intervals, ensure tight control of FWER, be robust to variance heterogeneity, avoid pre-testing for global effect (for one-way designs) or irrelevant interaction (for multi-way designs) prior to multiple comparison procedures. On the basis of selected examples, the R programs are provided for this purpose.

preprint2022arXiv

Simultaneous confidence intervals for the interpretation of primary and secondary effects in factorial designs without a pre-test on interaction

The analysis of low dimensional factorial designs with possible interactions is a relevant issue. Instead of the common pre-tests for interaction, a simultaneous inference procedure of the primary factor at the respective level of the secondary factor as well as pooled over all its levels is proposed.

preprint2020arXiv

A modified Armitage test for more than a linear trend on proportions

The Armitage test for linear trend in proportions can be modified using the multiple marginal model approach for three regression models with arithmetic, ordinal and logarithmic dose scores simultaneously, to be powerful against a wide range of possible dose response relationships. Moreover, it can be used for particular designs in the generalized linear (mixed) model for the three common effect sizes odds ratio, risk ratio and risk difference. The related R package tukeytrend allows simple generalizations, e.g. the analysis 2-by-k table data with a possible plateau shape or analysing overdispersed proportions. The evaluation of further real data examples are available in a vignette to that R package.

preprint2020arXiv

A Tukey type trend test for repeated carcinogenicity bioassays, motivated by multiple glyphosate studies

In the last two decades, significant methodological progress to the simultaneous inference of simple and complex randomized designs, particularly proportions as endpoints, occurred. This includes: i) the new Tukey trend test approach, ii) multiple contrast tests for binomial proportions, iii) multiple contrast tests for poly-k estimates, and Add-1 approximation for one-sided inference. This report focus on a new Tukey type trend test to evaluate repeated long-term carcinogenicity bioassays which was motivated by multiple glyphosate studies. Notice, it is not the aim here to contribute to the evaluation of Glyphosate and its controversies. By means of the CRAN-packages tukeytrend, MCPAN, multcomp the real data analysis is straightforward possible.

preprint2020arXiv

A versatile trend test for the evaluation of tumor incidences in long-term carcinogenicity bioassays

For the evaluation of carcinogenicity bioassays a new trend test is proposed which is based on a maximum of arithmetic, ordinal, and logarithmic regression scores as well as the Williams-type contrasts for either crude proportions or more appropriate poly3-estimates for the tumor-by-time relationships. This test provides an almost appropriate power for most shapes of dose-response relationships (including for possible downturn effect at high(er) dose(s)), common signs of significance (p-value, confidence limits) and the information on the probable shape. Related software is easily available within the CRAN-packages tukeytrend, MCPAN, multcomp.

preprint2020arXiv

Claiming trend in toxicological and pharmacological dose-response studies: an overview on statistical methods and related R-Software

There are very different statistical methods for demonstrating a trend in pharmacological experiments. Here, the focus is on sparse models with only one parameter to be estimated and interpreted: the increase in the regression model and the difference to control in the contrast model. This provides both p-values and confidence intervals for an appropriate effect size. A combined test consisting of the Tukey regression approach and the multiple contrast test according to Williams is recommended, which can be generalized to the generalized linear (mixed effect) model. Thus numerous variable types occurring in pharmacology/toxicology can be adequately evaluated. Software is available through CRAN packages. The most significant limitation of this approach is for designs with very small sample sizes, often in pharmacology/toxicology.

preprint2020arXiv

Closed test procedures for the comparison of dose groups against a negative control group or placebo

Dose groups are compared with a control assuming an order restriction usually by the Williams trend test. Here, as an alternative, two variants of the closed testing procedure are considered, one where global Williams tests are used in the partition hypotheses, and another where pairwise contrast tests are used for this purpose. Related R software is provided.

preprint2020arXiv

Model-based simultaneous inference for multiple subgroups and multiple endpoints

Various methodological options exist on evaluating differences in both subgroups and the overall population. Most desirable is the simultaneous study of multiple endpoints in several populations. We investigate a newer method using multiple marginal models (mmm) which allows flexible handling of multiple endpoints, including continuous, binary or time-to-event data. This paper explores the performance of mmm in contrast to the standard Bonferroni approach via simulation. Mainly these methods are compared on the basis of their familywise error rate and power under different scenarios, varying in sample size and standard deviation. Additionally, it is shown that the method can deal with overlapping subgroup definitions and different combinations of endpoints may be assumed. The reanalysis of a clinical example shows a practical application.