The name is absent



91

Table 4.2: Simulation truth pi under five alternative scenarios

scenario

good

intermediate

poor

Ni

6, 6, 8

40, 40, 30, 20, 20,10

7, 7, 6

SO

.59,.55,.47

.45,.4,.36,.34,.3,.26

.23,.19,.17

Sl

.28,.26,.24

.18,.16,.15,.17,.2,.19

.12,.13,.10

S2

.28,.26,.18

.24,.16,.15,.17,.10,.19

.12,.20,.10

S3

.40,.45,.35

.15,.10,.15,.12,.10,.10

.45,.35,.40

S4

.30,.40,.15

.20,.10,.30,.20,.15,.12

.15,.40,.30

The covariate ʃ, is equal to —1,0 or 1 when i indexes a sarcoma subtype with
poor, intermediate or good prognosis, respectively, MVN(μ, Λ) is the multivariate
normal distribution with mean μ and precision matrix Λ; and I2 denotes the 2 × 2
identity matrix. The precision matrix for the vector of regression parameters is chosen
to match the hyperparameter means in (4.1).

In the comparison, we consider n = 12 different experimental units (sarcoma
subtypes) with a categorical covariable xi with values -1 (poor), 0 (intermediate) and
1 (good). Each simulated trial realization consists of n independent observations
yi ~ Bin(7¾,jVi) with success rates fixed at an assumed simulation truth, and fixed
sample size Ni. We use Ni = 6,6,8,40,40,30,20,20,10,7,7 and 6, respectively. The
first three subtypes have poor overall prognosis, xi = — l,i = 1,...,3. The last three
subtypes have good prognosis, xi = 1, i — 10,..., 12. The remaining six subtypes
have xi = 0. The sample sizes Ni are chosen to match the expected accrual under
the 12 sarcoma subtypes in the motivating phase II sarcoma trial. For the simulation
truth on pi we consider five scenarios, SO through S4, summarized in Table 4.2.

Scenarios SO and Sl favor the HLRM model. The grouping by prognosis is perfect
and the monotonicity assumption implicit in the HLRM is satisfied. The remaining
scenarios represent varying levels of mismatch between prognosis and true success



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
5. Enterpreneurship and problems of specialists training in Ukraine
6. Gender and headship in the twenty-first century
7. HOW WILL PRODUCTION, MARKETING, AND CONSUMPTION BE COORDINATED? FROM A FARM ORGANIZATION VIEWPOINT
8. Beyond Networks? A brief response to ‘Which networks matter in education governance?’
9. Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results
10. Integration, Regional Specialization and Growth Differentials in EU Acceding Countries: Evidence from Hungary