Stepwise Confidence Intervals without Multiplicity Adjustment for Dose—Response and Toxicity Studies
剂量反应与毒性研究中无需多重性调整的逐步置信区间AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要核心是顺序置信集与多重性控制,未明确研究因果识别或所列其他细分方法。
剂量反应与毒性研究中无需多重性调整的逐步置信区间AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Not all simultaneous inferences need multiplicity adjustment. If the sequence of individual inferences is predefined, and failure to achieve the desired inference at any step renders subsequent inferences unnecessary, then multiplicity adjustment is not needed. This can be justified using the closed testing principle to test appropriate hypotheses that are nested in sequence, starting with the most restrictive one. But what hypotheses are appropriate may not be obvious in some problems. We give a fundamentally different, confidence set–based justification by partitioning the parameter space naturally and using the principle that exactly one member of the partition contains the true parameter. In dose–response studies designed to show superiority of treatments over a placebo (negative control) or a drug known to be efficacious (active control), the confidence set approach generates methods with meaningful guarantee against incorrect decision, whereas previous applications of the closed testing approach have not always done so. Application of the confidence set approach to toxicity studies designed to show equivalence of treated groups with a placebo is also given.