Bring your dataset and define what you want to understand. OptiMod checks the data, evaluates suitable methods and carries out the analysis—with findings, uncertainty and a Scientific Report you can inspect.
The question defines the analytical objective. Variable types, data quality and relationships narrow the field of candidate methods. Mathematical requirements and diagnostic evidence inform the final choice.
Inspect the data
Check variable types, completeness and dependence. Identify information that would reveal the outcome in advance.
Assess the methods
Establish which methods are eligible, fit candidates and compare their assumptions and diagnostics against the objective.
Document the result
Connect the estimates to the chosen method, its uncertainty and the limitations that matter for interpretation.
OptiMod’s core algorithms were developed in-house, building on several years of research at Leibniz University Hannover. Scientific knowledge becomes part of the workflow, from the first data check to the final report.
You bring the question. OptiMod handles the statistics.
A simpler interface is only part of the advance. OptiMod brings scientific decision logic into the analysis itself, so people can investigate their data without having to become statistics specialists.
A conventional statistics workflow
Powerful tools. You steer the analysis.
Statistical software provides the methods. The person using it still needs to determine what fits the data, which assumptions to examine and how to interpret the findings.
Select and configure a suitable method.
Run the relevant assumption checks.
Interpret the estimates and uncertainty.
Assemble the methods and results for review.
With OptiMod
An autopilot for scientific analysis.
You contribute the question and knowledge of your field. OptiMod carries out the statistical workflow and keeps the reasoning connected to the results.
Data-driven evaluation and selection of suitable methods.
Automatic assumption checks with recorded outcomes.
Understandable findings with their uncertainty and limits.
A Scientific Report with methods, tests and analytical decisions.
03 / One example. A much wider opportunity.
The average can miss the effect.
This simulated drug study illustrates a common analytical blind spot: an overall average can hide important subgroup effects. It is one of many examples of what deeper scientific analysis can reveal.
Simulated drug study · 600 participants
Average change by study armDistribution of individual responsesTwo response patterns, made visible
ImprovementWorsening
Change in symptom score · lower is better
ControlTreatmentGroup A · treatmentGroup B · treatment
A limited view
Almost the same average.
Across all participants, the treatment and control averages are nearly identical. A mean-only analysis finds no statistically significant overall difference.
−0.15pointsTreatment − control
95% CI −1.22 to +0.92 · p = .780
Does that mean nobody benefited?
A closer look
Two peaks. One misleading average.
The control group clusters near zero. Treatment responses form two distinct peaks: one toward improvement, the other toward worsening.
Opposite responses can cancel each other out in the average.
Do the predefined patient groups explain the difference?
The effect beneath the average
A clear benefit, hidden in the total.
Group AImprovement
−8.05points
95% CI −8.81 to −7.28 · p < .001
Group BWorsening
+7.74points
95% CI +6.94 to +8.54 · p < .001
The analysis reveals a statistically supported benefit in Group A that the overall average concealed.
Each effect compares treatment with control within that group.
The question changes. From “Does it work on average?” to “For whom does it work?”
This independently computed illustration uses simulated data, not a real drug trial or an analysis run in OptiMod. The two baseline biomarker groups are defined before treatment outcomes are observed. Each group contains 150 treatment and 150 control participants.
Two-sided Welch tests compare treatment with control overall and within each group. Subgroup p-values are Holm-adjusted for the two comparisons; the displayed 95% confidence intervals are pointwise.
A direct treatment-by-group interaction contrast tests whether the effects differ: +15.79 points for B minus A, 95% CI +14.68 to +16.89, p < .001. Its standard error combines the four independent cell variances with Welch–Satterthwaite degrees of freedom.
The curves are Gaussian kernel density estimates with the same bandwidth for every group. Treatment subgroup curves are weighted by their 50% share, so together they reproduce the treatment distribution.
Deeper analysis. More of what your data can reveal.
Hidden subgroup effects are only one example. Confounding factors, correlations mistaken for causes and unsuitable models can also distort a conclusion. OptiMod automates deeper scientific scrutiny, helping teams uncover overlooked evidence and untapped opportunities across research, business and public policy.
04 / The hybrid architecture
Where rules and AI each contribute.
OptiMod combines scientific knowledge, mathematical calculations and targeted AI assistance. Each contributes to an analysis that is efficient to run and clear to understand.
The analytical foundation
Scientific rules & calculations.
Scientific requirements and numerical evidence guide the analytical path, from the methods that fit the data to the estimates they produce.
Determine which methods are eligible.
Check model assumptions against the data.
Compare suitable methods and their diagnostics.
Calculate effects, tests and uncertainty.
Support where it adds value
Targeted AI assistance.
AI supports data understanding and efficient analysis, helping turn complex findings into explanations that stay connected to the calculations.
Help interpret the structure and context of data.
Accelerate selected parts of the workflow.
Express findings in understandable language.
Connect explanations to results and their limits.
Scientific knowledge
Mathematical checks
Statistical evidence
Clear explanation
For scientific and business-critical decisions, the bottleneck is no longer producing an answer, but trusting it.
05 / Your analysis, delivered
A report you can take with you.
Export your Scientific Report as a PDF. It documents data preparation, method selection, model assumptions, the named tests used to check them and the results. Review, share and retain the analysis independently of your access to OptiMod.
Example extract · simulated study
Treatment effects across baseline groups
Change in symptom score · lower is better
Study design
600 participants; treatment and control randomized 1:1 within two prespecified baseline biomarker groups. 150 participants per arm in each group.
Comparison
Mean difference: treatment minus control, overall and within groups A and B. Interaction: the treatment effect in group B minus the treatment effect in group A.
Statistical tests
Two-sided Welch t-tests; interaction tested as an independent-cell contrast with Satterthwaite degrees of freedom. Holm adjustment for the two subgroup tests. Pointwise 95% confidence intervals.
Results
Overall−0.15 points · 95% CI −1.22 to 0.92 · p = .780
Group A−8.05 points · 95% CI −8.81 to −7.28 · adjusted p < .001
Group B+7.74 points · 95% CI 6.94 to 8.54 · adjusted p < .001
Interaction15.79 points · 95% CI 14.68 to 16.89 · p < .001
The example package contains the synthetic dataset, calculation script and full numerical results.
In this independently computed example using public Capital Bikeshare data, both count models were fitted to the first 547 days. Predictions were evaluated on the next 184 days using recorded weather.
Candidate
Training AIC
Holdout MAErides/day
Poisson
66,197.6
689
Negative binomial (NB2)
8,815.7
863
Lower values are better for both measures. AIC assesses model fit relative to complexity. Mean absolute error (MAE) measures prediction error.
Association analysis. The Poisson fit showed substantial extra variation. NB2 had the lower training AIC and was selected to study associations in this example.
Prediction error. On the 184 held-out days, Poisson predictions were off by 689 rides per day on average, compared with 863 for NB2. This comparison used observed weather.
Use OptiMod directly or explore bringing its analysis capability into your own software, data platform or AI assistant. The interface can change; the need for scientifically grounded, traceable findings stays the same.