arXiv subjects

Maria Thurow

Publications and source records attributed to Maria Thurow.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Statistical parametric simulation studies based on real data

Simulation studies are indispensable for evaluating statistical methods and ubiquitous in statistical research. The most common simulation approach is parametric simulation, where the data-generating mechanism (DGM) corresponds to a parametric model from which observations are drawn. While many simulation studies aim to give practical guidance on method suitability, parametric simulations in particular are often criticized for being unrealistic. To overcome this drawback, it is sensible to employ real data for constructing the parametric DGMs. However, although real-data-based parametric DGMs are widely used, the specific ways in which DGM components are inferred vary, and their implications may not be fully understood. Additionally, researchers often rely on a limited selection of real datasets, with the rationale for their selection being unclear. This paper reviews and formally discusses how components of parametric DGMs can be inferred from real data and how dataset selection can be performed more systematically. By doing so, we aim to support researchers in conducting simulation studies with a lower risk of overgeneralization and misinterpretation. We illustrate the construction of parametric DGMs based on a systematically selected set of real datasets using two examples: one on ordinal outcomes in randomized controlled trials and one on differential gene expression analysis.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

How to Simulate Realistic Survival Data? A Simulation Study to Compare Realistic Simulation Models

In statistics, it is important to have realistic data sets available for a particular context to allow an appropriate and objective method comparison. For many use cases, benchmark data sets for method comparison are already available online. However, in most medical applications and especially for clinical trials in oncology, there is a lack of adequate benchmark data sets, as patient data can be sensitive and therefore cannot be published. A potential solution for this are simulation studies. However, it is sometimes not clear, which simulation models are suitable for generating realistic data. A challenge is that potentially unrealistic assumptions have to be made about the distributions. Our approach is to use reconstructed benchmark data sets %can be used as a basis for the simulations, which has the following advantages: the actual properties are known and more realistic data can be simulated. There are several possibilities to simulate realistic data from benchmark data sets. We investigate simulation models based upon kernel density estimation, fitted distributions, case resampling and conditional bootstrapping. In order to make recommendations on which models are best suited for a specific survival setting, we conducted a comparative simulation study. Since it is not possible to provide recommendations for all possible survival settings in a single paper, we focus on providing realistic simulation models for two-armed phase III lung cancer studies. To this end we reconstructed benchmark data sets from recent studies. We used the runtime and different accuracy measures (effect sizes and p-values) as criteria for comparison.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Goodness (of fit) of Imputation Accuracy: The GoodImpact Analysis

In statistical survey analysis, (partial) non-responders are integral elements during data acquisition. Treating missing values during data preparation and data analysis is therefore a non-trivial underpinning. Focusing on different data sets from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (DESTATIS), we investigate various imputation methods regarding their imputation accuracy. Since the latter is not uniquely determined in theory and practice, we study different measures for assessing imputation accuracy: Beyond the most common measures, the normalized-root mean squared error (NRMSE) and the proportion of false classification (PFC), we put a special focus on (distribution) distance- and association measures for assessing imputation accuracy. The aim is to deliver guidelines for correctly assessing distributional accuracy after imputation. Our empirical findings indicate a discrepancy between the NRMSE resp. PFC and distance measures. While the latter measure distributional similarities, NRMSE and PFC focus on data reproducibility. We realize that a low NRMSE or PFC seem not to imply lower distributional discrepancies. Although several measures for assessing distributional discrepancies exist, our results indicate that not all of them are suitable for evaluating imputation-induced differences.

stat.AP↗