Overcoming model uncertainty -- how equivalence tests can benefit from model averaging
Niklas Hagemann, Kathrin M\"ollenhoff

TL;DR
This paper introduces a model averaging approach for equivalence testing of regression curves, addressing model uncertainty to improve accuracy in clinical and toxicological studies.
Contribution
It proposes a novel extension of equivalence tests using smooth AIC weights for model averaging, enhancing robustness under model misspecification.
Findings
Validates the approach through simulation studies
Demonstrates practical relevance with a toxicological case study
Improves test accuracy under model uncertainty
Abstract
A common problem in numerous research areas, particularly in clinical trials, is to test whether the effect of an explanatory variable on an outcome variable is equivalent across different groups. In practice, these tests are frequently used to compare the effect between patient groups, e.g. based on gender, age or treatments. Equivalence is usually assessed by testing whether the difference between the groups does not exceed a pre-specified equivalence threshold. Classical approaches are based on testing the equivalence of single quantities, e.g. the mean, the area under the curve (AUC) or other values of interest. However, when differences depending on a particular covariate are observed, these approaches can turn out to be not very accurate. Instead, whole regression curves over the entire covariate range, describing for instance the time window or a dose range, are considered and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNuclear reactor physics and engineering · Nuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
