|
|
|
@ -32,14 +32,22 @@ This would use the IND or similar data to build the list of phase transitions.
|
|
|
|
### Design tradeoffs
|
|
|
|
### Design tradeoffs
|
|
|
|
Some design tradeoffs include
|
|
|
|
Some design tradeoffs include
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Normalized or non-normalized transition paths? I'm particularly interested in inclucing mixed-phase paths.
|
|
|
|
- Normalized or non-normalized transition paths? I'm particularly interested in inclucing mixed-phase paths, i.e. non-normalized paths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overall Model
|
|
|
|
## Overall Model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall this would allow me to construct a probabalistic description of passing through the d
|
|
|
|
Overall this would allow me to construct a probabalistic description of passing through the trials portion of the R&D pipeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The probabalistic model could then be used to answer various questions, including causal/structural questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would also be straightforward to develop simulations from this approach, as the probabilities are right there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Estimation Strategy
|
|
|
|
# Estimation Strategy
|
|
|
|
Probably use a non-parametric bayesian approach to estimating the probability densities.
|
|
|
|
Probably use a non-parametric bayesian approach to estimating the probability densities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Identification Strategy
|
|
|
|
## Identification Strategy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Descriptive identification
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Causal Identification
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not of interest right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|