Simulation Studies Sample Clauses

Simulation Studies. ‌ We evaluate the proposed methods in Monte Carlo simulations of 500 datasets. Each Monte Carlo dataset contains 500 observations with patient characteristics, principal stratum assignment, treatment information, and out- come data generated as described in the following sections. In all simulation scenarios, principal stratum, treatment assignment, and survival status must be determined prior to outcome generation, as Yi can only exist for those indi- viduals with Si = 1. Therefore, while Yi is generated for all observations with Gi = LL, it can only be generated for observations with Gi = LD and Zi = 1 or Gi = DL and Zi = 0, and it cannot be generated for observations wtih Gi = DD at all. In each of the 500 Monte Carlo datasets, four variables are generated to represent patient characteristics D. D1, D2, D4 are generated from Uniform distributions of varying ranges (Unif [1, 1], Unif [−2, 2], and Unif [0, 1] respec- tively). D3 is generated for each individual using a Bernoulli distribution with p = 0.5. Overlapping subsets of these covariates are used in the models that generate principal strata assignment (D2, D3, D4) and the treatment assign- ment (D1, D2, D3) for each observation. Principal strata assignment, Gi is generated from a discrete distribution with probabilities generated from a multinomial logit model, as presented in equation (2.1) in Section 2.2.3. The parameters of this model, αg, are se- lected such that LD is the reference group and the average values of the probabilities of principal strata in simulation population have the preferred relationship πLL > πLD > πDL > πDD. Specifically the parameter values are αLL = [0.85, 1.0, −0.5, 0.5], αDL = [−0.55, 1.5, −0.5, 0.25], and αDD = [−1.2, −0.8, −0.5, −0.5]. Treatment assignment, Zi, is generated from a Bernoulli distribution with probability pZ,i. A logistic regression model is used to xx- xxxxxxx pZ,i, with parameters β = [0.1, 1.5, −1.0, −0.5], selected to achieve an average probability that is slightly greater than 0.5 for the simulation popula- tion. g
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Simulation Studies. Simulation studies will be used to compare the performance of the proposed diagnostic measures in detecting the true number of components for the latent trajectory model. One-, two-, and three-class model solutions were compared using each of the possible criteria. In several instances, models that overfit the data were found to lead to numerical problems or divergent solutions. This is not surprising since cross-sectional finite mixture models often encounter identifiability and numerical issues when too many latent classes are assumed[34]. These numerical issues arise because the regularity conditions required for the asymptotic theory of maximum likelihood to apply are sometimes violated for small data sets, mixtures with small component weights, and overfitting mixtures with too many components[30]. Thus, starting values that led to a GEE that could not be successfully estimated without error were excluded from consideration in the following simulation studies. In addition, divergent solutions were not considered. A divergent solution was deemed to be any solution for which the absolute value of one or more of the parameter estimates associated with the polytomous logistic regression model or the GEE for one of the binary feature variables exceeded 10. Finally, any root that had not converged in 100 iterations was excluded. After the aforementioned roots were excluded from consideration, weak identifiability was assessed [30]. Specifically, when considering a C-component mixture model, any class for which the mixing proportion, πg(g = 1, . . . , C), was less than 0.01 was deemed an empty class and treated as a C − 1 class solution. Similarly, if the maximum absolute difference between elements of βg and βg′ for g ̸= g′(g, g′ = 1, . . . , C) was less than 0.01, the two classes were deemed to be equivalent and the root was treated as a C − 1 class solution.
Sample 1
Simulation Studies. Results from the state space model suggest that rewards that help players explore the game become less attractive after purchase and currency rewards will decrease players’ purchase intention. Also, I have found empirical evidence of points pressure for all three types of rewards and level-ups. In this section I seek to gauge the impact of some adjustments of the rewards structure according to the findings on players’ play and purchase decisions. Adjustments in the rewards structures I propose are easy to implement for the developer and I will show how those changes influence player conversion and engagement. The results from the play equation showed that rental rewards and currency rewards become not very appealing to pay players. So, in the first simulation study I want to use customer information (whether players have purchased the character pack) to customize the reward structure. Specifically, for players who own the character pack several rental rewards are replaced by progress accelerators since results from play equation results suggest that rewards that help players progress stays relevant while rewards that help players become less influential. The impact of replacing 1/2/3 rental rewards by progress accelerator rewards on players’ play activity are compared to the case with the original rewards structure and the results are displayed in Table 10. By changing one rental reward to an accelerator reward after players’ purchase, the number of game sessions played daily by character pack owners increased by about 4.95%. This number goes up to 11.54% when I replace 3 rental rewards instead. The model predicts that by simply adjusting the reward type based on player investment status the developer can have a decent boost in customer engagement for the group of committed players. Results of the purchase equation imply that currency rewards work against players’ character pack purchase intentions. However, the results of the play equation show that progress towards currency rewards can motivate free users more than accelerators. In the second simulation study I try to gauge the impact of replacing several currency rewards with accelerator rewards. The impact of this change on player purchase and play are shown in Table 11. When I replace one currency reward by an accelerator the decrease in sessions played daily is only 1.45% while the increase in number of character pack purchases is about 4%. If two currency rewards are replaced, the percentage decreas...
Sample 1
Simulation Studies. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the impact on ASE bias and mapping quality when using the three competing mapping strategies: using the universal ref- erence genome which is the status quo, using the masked universal reference genome which is introduced by Xxxxxx et al. 2009; and using the diploid personalized ref- erence genome which we propose. In order to represent the diversity of human population and investigate its impact on the results, we selected three individuals from the HapMap panel, one Caucasian from CEPH (NA12865), one African from YRI (NA19238) and one Asian from CHB (NA18621). For each individual, we down- loaded the individual’s genotype information (2007-03 version) from the International HapMap Project. As Xxxxxx et al. did in their study, we randomly inserted sequenc- ing errors on reads generated. We tested three different sequencing error rates: 0, 0.01 and 0.05. When simulating reads, we choose the sequencing read length to be 35 bp and 100 bp, and then randomly sample DNA fragments across the whole diploid reference genome except chromosome X and Y. We only keep reads that cover at least one heterozygous SNP. For each of the three sequencing error rates, 2 million reads were generated. Either reference or alternative allele was selected with equal proba- bility thus assume balanced allele specific expression. To create the masked reference genome, all SNPs identified from the 214 individuals in the International HapMap Project (genotype information obtained from the 2007-03 version) are masked. In order to increase the precision with more mapped reads, we consider SNPs located in both exons and introns.
Sample 1
Simulation Studies. We conducte simulation studies to evaluate performance of the proposed methods compared with existing methods for many different scenarios. To generate the networks and observations on nodes, we follow the simulation settings in Li and Li (2008), Zhe et al. (2013) and Xxx et al. (2013). See Figure
Sample 1
Simulation Studies. ‌ In this section, the 1D simulation analysis is conducted to compare our newly pro- posed voxel-wise univariate heritability estimation methods with those frequently used methods in terms of prediction accuracy, validity, sensitivity, and the over- all computation time for different variance component settings. The ROC-based simulation studies generate 2D imaging data for power evaluation and comparison between the voxel- and cluster-wise heritability inference approaches with various simulation settings.
Sample 1
Simulation Studies. Extensive simulations are conducted to evaluate the performance of the two proposed methods MICE-XXXX and MICE-IURR in comparison with the standard MICE and several other existing methods under general missing data patterns. For MICE-XXXX and MICE-IURR, we consider three regularization methods, namely, lasso, EN and Alasso. We summarize the simulation results over 200 Monte Carlo (MC) data sets. Following Shah et al. (2014), when applying MI methods, we generate 10 imputed data sets for subsequent analysis, which is our primary goal. To benchmark the bias and loss of efficiency in parameter estimation, two additional approaches that do not involve imputations are also included: a gold standard (GS) method that uses the underlying complete data before missing data are generated, and a complete-case analysis (CC) method that uses only complete-cases for which all the variables are observed(Little and Xxxxx, 2002). The setup of the simulations is similar to what was used in Zhao and Long (2013). Specifically, the sample size is fixed at n = 100 and each simulated data set includes Y , the fully observed outcome variable, and Z = (Z1, . . . , Zp), the set of predictors and auxiliary variables. We consider settings with p = 200 and p = 1000. We consider Z1, Z2, and Z3 having missing values, which follow a general missing data pattern. We first generate (Z4, . . . , Zp) from a multivariate normal distribution with mean (0, . . . , 0)p−4 and a first order autoregressive covariance matrix with autocorrelation ρ varying as 0, 0.1, 0.5, and 0.9. Given (Z4, . . . , Zp), variables Z1, Z2, and Z3 are generated independently from a normal distribution N (1 + ZSα, 4), where S represents the true active set with a cardinality of q. We further consider settings where q = 4 and 20, and α = (1, . . . , 1)j4 for q = 4; α = (0.2, . . . , 0.2)j20 for q = 20. For q = 4 and 20, the corresponding true active set ZS = {Z4, Z5, Z50, Z51} and {Z4, . . . , Z13, Z50, . . . , Z59}. Given Z, the outcome variable Y is generated from Y = β0 + β1Z1 + β2Z2 + β3Z3 + β4Z4 + β5Z5 + s, where βi = 1, and s ∼ N (0, 6) is random noise and independent of Zi. Missing values are created in Z1, Z2, and Z3 using the following logit models for the corresponding missing indicators, x0, x0, and x0, xxxxx(Xx(x0 = 1)) = −1−Z4+2Z5 −Y , logit(Pr(δ2 = 1)) = −1−Z4+2Z51 −Y , and logit(Pr(δ3 = 1)) = −1 − Z50 + 2Z51 − Y , resulting in approximately 40% of observations having missing values. We compare our proposed ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Simulation Studies. We examine in this section the performance of the proposed methods. Suppose our vertically partitioned data X consist p = 6 independent variables from K = 3 institutions. We assume each institution possesses two independent variables and has access to the outcome variable Y . We are interested in a multiple linear regression: Y = Xθ + s site1 site2 site3 = ( , Xx1s, X˛2, ¸X3x,sX˛4, X¸ 5x,sX˛6) × (θ0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0, x0)X + s, when X1 has missing values. We generate X2, ..., X6 independently from the uniform distribution on (-1, 1). We
Sample 1

Related to Simulation Studies

  • Clinical Studies The animal and other preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted by the Company or on behalf of the Company were, and, if still pending are, to the Company’s knowledge, being conducted in all material respects in compliance with all Applicable Laws and in accordance with experimental protocols, procedures and controls generally used by qualified experts in the preclinical study and clinical trials of new drugs and biologics as applied to comparable products to those being developed by the Company; the descriptions of the results of such preclinical studies and clinical trials contained in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus are accurate and complete in all material respects, and, except as set forth in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus, the Company has no knowledge of any other clinical trials or preclinical studies, the results of which reasonably call into question the clinical trial or preclinical study results described or referred to in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus when viewed in the context in which such results are described; and the Company has not received any written notices or correspondence from the FDA, the EMA, or any other domestic or foreign governmental agency requiring the termination, suspension or modification of any preclinical studies or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company that are described in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus or the results of which are referred to in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus.

  • Clinical Trials The studies, tests and preclinical and clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company, or in which the Company has participated, that are described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, or the results of which are referred to in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus, were and, if still pending, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with protocols, procedures and controls pursuant to, where applicable, accepted professional and scientific standards for products or product candidates comparable to those being developed by the Company and all applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the FDA, the EMEA, Health Canada and other comparable drug and medical device (including diagnostic product) regulatory agencies outside of the United States to which they are subject; the descriptions of the results of such studies, tests and trials contained in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or the Prospectus do not contain any misstatement of a material fact or omit a material fact necessary to make such statements not misleading; the Company has no knowledge of any studies, tests or trials not described in the Disclosure Package and the Prospectus the results of which reasonably call into question in any material respect the results of the studies, tests and trials described in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package or Prospectus; and the Company has not received any notices or other correspondence from the FDA, EMEA, Health Canada or any other foreign, state or local governmental body exercising comparable authority or any Institutional Review Board or comparable authority requiring or threatening the termination, suspension or material modification of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of, or sponsored by, the Company or in which the Company has participated, and, to the Company’s knowledge, there are no reasonable grounds for the same. Except as disclosed in the Registration Statement, the Time of Sale Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, there has not been any violation of law or regulation by the Company in its respective product development efforts, submissions or reports to any regulatory authority that could reasonably be expected to require investigation, corrective action or enforcement action.

  • Studies The clinical, pre-clinical and other studies and tests conducted by or on behalf of or sponsored by the Company or its subsidiaries that are described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus were and, if still pending, are being conducted in accordance in all material respects with all statutes, laws, rules and regulations, as applicable (including, without limitation, those administered by the FDA or by any foreign, federal, state or local governmental or regulatory authority performing functions similar to those performed by the FDA). The descriptions of the results of such studies and tests that are described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus are accurate and complete in all material respects and fairly present the published data derived from such studies and tests, and each of the Company and its subsidiaries has no knowledge of other studies or tests the results of which are materially inconsistent with or otherwise call into question the results described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus. Except as described in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Prospectus, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries has received any notices or other correspondence from the FDA or any other foreign, federal, state or local governmental or regulatory authority performing functions similar to those performed by the FDA with respect to any ongoing clinical or pre-clinical studies or tests requiring the termination or suspension of such studies or tests. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company makes no representation or warranty that the results of any studies, tests or preclinical or clinical trials conducted by or on behalf of the Company will be sufficient to obtain governmental approval from the FDA or any foreign, state or local governmental body exercising comparable authority.

  • Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.

  • Trials The Ship shall run the following test and trials:

  • Research Plan The Parties recognize that the Research Plan describes the collaborative research and development activities they will undertake and that interim research goals set forth in the Research Plan are good faith guidelines. Should events occur that require modification of these goals, then by mutual agreement the Parties can modify them through an amendment, according to Paragraph 13.6.

  • Clinical 2.1 Provides comprehensive evidence based nursing care to patients including assessment, intervention and evaluation.

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

  • Development Work Do, or cause to be done, such development and other work as may be reasonably necessary to protect from diminution and production capacity of the Mortgaged Property and each producing well thereon.

  • Feasibility Study 4.3.1 The Feasibility Study shall identify any potential adverse system impacts that would result from the interconnection of the Generating Facility.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.