arXiv subjects

Martin Schnuerch

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Schnuerch.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Assessing covariate-adjusted risk differences in small-sample clinical trials

Binary endpoints are common in clinical trials and conditional odds ratios have traditionally been used to assess treatment effects. However, the interpretation of odds ratios is difficult, they are non-collapsible, and conditional odds-ratios obtained from regression models additionally rely on modeling assumptions in order to be a relevant overall summary measure for the trial. As an alternative, risk differences have gained increasing prominence as a more interpretable, clinically meaningful and assumption-lean measure of treatment effects. This shift has also been motivated by new regulatory guidance, which emphasizes the relevance of marginal estimands and encourages covariate adjustment. Yet, covariate-adjusted inference for risk differences, particularly in smaller samples, has methodological subtleties and lacks well-established best practices. We conduct a simulation study comparing methods for estimating and testing risk differences in small-sample (N$\,\leq\,$150) randomized clinical trials with prognostic categorical baseline covariates, focusing on exact unconditional tests, Mantel-Haenszel methods, and $g$-computation (standardization) approaches. We find that several $g$-computation approaches exhibit inflated Type I error in very small samples when standard Wald-type inference is applied, whereas robust or penalized variants improve error control at the expense of power. Classical methods such as the Mantel-Haenszel and Suissa-Shuster tests remain robust but may forgo efficiency gains from covariate adjustment. Overall, our results suggest that misalignment between estimand and variance estimation may contribute to the Type I error inflation, beyond the impact of small sample size alone. Based on these results, we provide practical recommendations to guide method selection that align the estimand, variance estimation, and inferential target.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Validation and Comparison of Non-Stationary Cognitive Models: A Diffusion Model Application

Cognitive processes undergo various fluctuations and transient states across different temporal scales. Superstatistics are emerging as a flexible framework for incorporating such non-stationary dynamics into existing cognitive model classes. In this work, we provide the first experimental validation of superstatistics and formal comparison of four non-stationary diffusion decision models in a specifically designed perceptual decision-making task. Task difficulty and speed-accuracy trade-off were systematically manipulated to induce expected changes in model parameters. To validate our models, we assess whether the inferred parameter trajectories align with the patterns and sequences of the experimental manipulations. To address computational challenges, we present novel deep learning techniques for amortized Bayesian estimation and comparison of models with time-varying parameters. Our findings indicate that transition models incorporating both gradual and abrupt parameter shifts provide the best fit to the empirical data. Moreover, we find that the inferred parameter trajectories closely mirror the sequence of experimental manipulations. Posterior re-simulations further underscore the ability of the models to faithfully reproduce critical data patterns. Accordingly, our results suggest that the inferred non-stationary dynamics may reflect actual changes in the targeted psychological constructs. We argue that our initial experimental validation paves the way for the widespread application of superstatistics in cognitive modeling and beyond.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2023

A Deep Learning Method for Comparing Bayesian Hierarchical Models

Bayesian model comparison (BMC) offers a principled approach for assessing the relative merits of competing computational models and propagating uncertainty into model selection decisions. However, BMC is often intractable for the popular class of hierarchical models due to their high-dimensional nested parameter structure. To address this intractability, we propose a deep learning method for performing BMC on any set of hierarchical models which can be instantiated as probabilistic programs. Since our method enables amortized inference, it allows efficient re-estimation of posterior model probabilities and fast performance validation prior to any real-data application. In a series of extensive validation studies, we benchmark the performance of our method against the state-of-the-art bridge sampling method and demonstrate excellent amortized inference across all BMC settings. We then showcase our method by comparing four hierarchical evidence accumulation models that have previously been deemed intractable for BMC due to partly implicit likelihoods. Additionally, we demonstrate how transfer learning can be leveraged to enhance training efficiency. We provide reproducible code for all analyses and an open-source implementation of our method.

stat.ML↗