Yes but no but yes but no but… [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-03-29 17:10 (4482 d 17:21 ago) – Posting: # 10312
Views: 25,747

Hi Martin!

❝ what about defining the extent of scaling after interim analysis of the first stage data (CV estimated in 1st stage) within a group-sequential adaptive design?


Theoretically OK. ;-)

❝ Drawback: BUT what if the CV at interim is smaller than 0.3 ... :confused:


or it is larger than 0.3 in stage 1 and in the pooled data set (n↑ = more precise estimate) you find one which is ≤0.3? If the inflation is real (still not sure) we have a problem – only with EMA’s method – in the CV-range 0.3–0.5. IMHO there are two options:
  1. Iteratively adjust α. :-D
  2. Use a fixed α of ~0.030 for partial replicates and ~0.025 for full replicates if CVWR ≤0.5 (see plots above). This should cover the entire range of designs and sample sizes of up to 96. The maximum ad­just­ment (at 0.3) is almost in­de­pendent from sample size (see plot below). Conservative for any CV >0.3…

    [image]

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,681 registered users;
46 visitors (0 registered, 46 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:31 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5