BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Werner Brannath

Werner Brannath contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
MethodologyMachine LearningArtificial Intelligencecs.CYmath.STQuantitative MethodsStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
7topics
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

A liberal type I error rate for studies in precision medicine

We introduce a new multiple type I error criterion for clinical trials with multiple populations. Such trials are of interest in precision medicine where the goal is to develop treatments that are targeted to specific sub-populations defined by genetic and/or clinical biomarkers. The new criterion is based on the observation that not all type I errors are relevant to all patients in the overall population. If disjoint sub-populations are considered, no multiplicity adjustment appears necessary, since a claim in one sub-population does not affect patients in the other ones. For intersecting sub-populations we suggest to control the average multiple type error rate, i.e. the probably that a randomly selected patient will be exposed to an inefficient treatment. We call this the population-wise error rate, exemplify it by a number of examples and illustrate how to control it with an adjustment of critical boundaries or adjusted p-values. We furthermore define corresponding simultaneous confidence intervals. We finally illustrate the power gain achieved by passing from family-wise to population-wise error rate control with two simple examples and a recently suggest multiple testing approach for umbrella trials.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A multiple testing framework for diagnostic accuracy studies with co-primary endpoints

Major advances have been made regarding the utilization of artificial intelligence in health care. In particular, deep learning approaches have been successfully applied for automated and assisted disease diagnosis and prognosis based on complex and high-dimensional data. However, despite all justified enthusiasm, overoptimistic assessments of predictive performance are still common. Automated medical testing devices based on machine-learned prediction models should thus undergo a throughout evaluation before being implemented into clinical practice. In this work, we propose a multiple testing framework for (comparative) phase III diagnostic accuracy studies with sensitivity and specificity as co-primary endpoints. Our approach challenges the frequent recommendation to strictly separate model selection and evaluation, i.e. to only assess a single diagnostic model in the evaluation study. We show that our parametric simultaneous test procedure asymptotically allows strong control of the family-wise error rate. Moreover, we demonstrate in extensive simulation studies that our multiple testing strategy on average leads to a better final diagnostic model and increased statistical power. To plan such studies, we propose a Bayesian approach to determine the optimal number of models to evaluate. For this purpose, our algorithm optimizes the expected final model performance given previous (hold-out) data from the model development phase. We conclude that an assessment of multiple promising diagnostic models in the same evaluation study has several advantages when suitable adjustments for multiple comparisons are implemented.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this paper we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Is there a role for statistics in artificial intelligence?

The research on and application of artificial intelligence (AI) has triggered a comprehensive scientific, economic, social and political discussion. Here we argue that statistics, as an interdisciplinary scientific field, plays a substantial role both for the theoretical and practical understanding of AI and for its future development. Statistics might even be considered a core element of AI. With its specialist knowledge of data evaluation, starting with the precise formulation of the research question and passing through a study design stage on to analysis and interpretation of the results, statistics is a natural partner for other disciplines in teaching, research and practice. This paper aims at contributing to the current discussion by highlighting the relevance of statistical methodology in the context of AI development. In particular, we discuss contributions of statistics to the field of artificial intelligence concerning methodological development, planning and design of studies, assessment of data quality and data collection, differentiation of causality and associations and assessment of uncertainty in results. Moreover, the paper also deals with the equally necessary and meaningful extension of curricula in schools and universities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Point and interval estimation of the target dose using weighted regression modelling

In a Phase II dose-finding study with a placebo control, a new drug with several dose levels is compared with a placebo to test for the effectiveness of the new drug. The main focus of such studies often lies in the characterization of the dose-response relationship followed by the estimation of a target dose that leads to a clinically relevant effect over the placebo. This target dose is known as the minimum effective dose (MED) in a drug development study. Several approaches exist that combine multiple comparison procedures with modeling techniques to efficiently estimate the dose-response model and thereafter select the target dose. Despite the flexibility of the existing approaches, they cannot completely address the model uncertainty in the model-selection step and may lead to target dose estimates that are biased. In this article, we propose two new MED estimation approaches based on weighted regression modeling that are robust against deviations from the dose-response model assumptions. These approaches are compared with existing approaches with regard to their accuracy in point and interval estimation of the MED. We illustrate by a simulation study that by integrating one of the new dose estimation approaches with the existing dose-response profile estimation approaches one can take into account the uncertainty of the model selection step.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access