Helps a clinical trial team  discuss
    the clinical goals  of a well-defined biomarker with a diagnostic,
    staging, prognostic, or predictive purpose.  From this discussion will
    come a statistical plan for a (non-randomized) validation trial.
    Both prospective and retrospective trials are supported. In a specific
    focused discussion, investigators should determine the range of
    "discomfort" for the NNT, number needed to treat.  The meaning of
    the discomfort range, [NNTlower, NNTupper], is that within this range
    most physicians would feel discomfort either in treating or withholding
    treatment. A pair of NNT values bracketing that range, NNTpos and NNTneg,
    become the targets of the study's design.  If the trial can demonstrate
    that a positive biomarker test yields an NNT less than NNTlower,
    and that a negative biomarker test yields an NNT less than NNTlower,
    then the biomarker may be useful for patients. A highlight of the package
    is visualization of a "contra-Bayes" theorem, which produces criteria for
    retrospective case-controls studies.

Some functions for performing non-negative matrix factorization, non-negative CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) decomposition, non-negative Tucker decomposition, and generating toy model data. See Andrzej Cichock et al (2009) and the reference section of GitHub README.md <https://github.com/rikenbit/nnTensor>, for details of the methods.

Draw samples from truncated multivariate normal distribution using the sequential nearest neighbor (SNN) method introduced in "Scalable Sampling of Truncated Multivariate Normals Using Sequential Nearest-Neighbor Approximation" <doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.17307>.

Functions for revealing what happens when effect size estimates 
    from previous studies are taken into account when evaluating each new dataset 
    in a study sequence. The analyses can be conducted for cumulative
    meta-analyses and for Bayesian data analyses. The package contains sample 
    data for a wide selection of research topics. Jointly considering 
    previous findings along with new data is more likely to result in correct 
    conclusions than does the traditional practice of not incorporating previous
    findings, which often results in a back and forth ping-pong of conclusions 
    when evaluating a sequence of studies.
    O'Connor & Ermacora (2021, <doi:10.1037/cbs0000259>).