Assists performing tip-dating of phylogenetic trees with BEAST 
    BEAST is a popular software for phylogenetic analysis.
    The package assists the implementation of various phylogenetic tip-
	dating tests using BEAST. It contains two main functions.
	The first one allows preparing date randomization analyses, 
	which assess the temporal signal of a data set. 
	The second function allows performing leave-one-out analyses,
	which test for the consistency between independent calibration sequences
	and allow pinpointing those leading to potential bias.
	The included tutorial provides detailed step-by-step instructions.
	An expanded description of the package can be found in article:
	Rieux, A. and Khatchikian, C.E. (2017), 
	TIPDATINGBEAST: an R package to assist the implementation of phylogenetic
	tip-dating tests using BEAST. Molecular Ecology Resources, 17: 608-613.
	<onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1755-0998.12603>.

Provides access to the complete Pali Canon, or
    Tipitaka, the canonical scripture for Theravadin Buddhists 
    worldwide. Based on the Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka version
    4 (Vipassana Research Institute, 1990).

Tipping point analysis for clinical trials that employ Bayesian dynamic borrowing via robust meta-analytic predictive (MAP) priors. Further functions facilitate expert elicitation of a primary weight of the informative component of the robust MAP prior and computation of operating characteristics. Intended use is the planning, analysis and interpretation of extrapolation studies in pediatric drug development, but applicability is generally wider.

'Htmlwidget' of 'Tippyjs' to add tooltips to 'Shiny' apps and 'R markdown' documents.

The strength of evidence provided by epidemiological and
    observational studies is inherently limited by the potential for
    unmeasured confounding.  We focus on three key quantities: the
    observed bound of the confidence interval closest to the null, the
    relationship between an unmeasured confounder and the outcome, for
    example a plausible residual effect size for an unmeasured continuous
    or binary confounder, and the relationship between an unmeasured
    confounder and the exposure, for example a realistic mean difference
    or prevalence difference for this hypothetical confounder between
    exposure groups. Building on the methods put forth by Cornfield et al.
    (1959), Bross (1966), Schlesselman (1978), Rosenbaum & Rubin (1983),
    Lin et al. (1998), Lash et al. (2009), Rosenbaum (1986), Cinelli &
    Hazlett (2020), VanderWeele & Ding (2017), and Ding & VanderWeele
    (2016), we can use these quantities to assess how an unmeasured
    confounder may tip our result to insignificance.