A Stepwise Confidence Interval Procedure Under Unknown Variances Based on an Asymmetric Loss Function for Toxicological Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary One of the most important issues in toxicity studies is the identification of the equivalence of treatments with a placebo. Because it is unacceptable to declare non‐equivalent treatments to be equivalent, it is important to adopt a reliable statistical method to properly control the family‐wise error rate (FWER). In dealing with this issue, it is important to keep in mind that overestimating toxicity equivalence is a more serious error than underestimating toxicity equivalence. Consequently asymmetric loss functions are more appropriate than symmetric loss functions. Recently Tao, Tang & Shi (2010) developed a new procedure based on an asymmetric loss function. However, their procedure is somewhat unsatisfactory because it assumes that the variances of various dose levels are known. This assumption is restrictive for some applications. In this study we propose an improved approach based on asymmetric confidence intervals without the restrictive assumption of known variances. The asymmetry guarantees reliability in the sense that the FWER is well controlled. Although our procedure is developed assuming that the variances of various dose levels are unknown but equal, simulation studies show that our procedure still performs quite well when the variances are unequal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".