TIE for NTIDs [Power / Sample Size]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2018-02-04 13:40 (3067 d 09:49 ago) – Posting: # 18340
Views: 26,420

Dear Astea, dear Helmut,

❝ ❝ I suspect TIE will be also inflated in studies of NTDs also (by using FDA approach or by using different confidence limits for two metrics).


❝ Might well be.


There is no reason to speculate. Fire up the all-in-one device suitable for every purpose PowerTOST :cool:
and use function power.NTIDFDA().

Try this (for the homoscedastic case swR=swT):
library(PowerTOST)
# number of subjects
n <- 12
design <- "2x2x4"
# theta is the reguatory constant for widening/shrinking the acceptance limits
# (see Warfarin guidance, but note: the theta there is theta^2)

theta <- -(log(0.9)/0.1)
# function to obtain the upper limit of the implied acceptance range
UL <- function(CV, theta){
  upper <- exp(theta* CV2se(CV))
  if (upper>1.25) upper <- 1.25
  upper
}

CVs <- seq(0.03, 0.4, by=0.01)
# reserve memory
GMR <- vector("numeric", length= length(CVs))
TIE <- vector("numeric", length= length(CVs))
ns  <- vector("numeric", length= length(CVs))

for (i in seq_along(CVs)){
  GMR[i] <- UL(CVs[i], theta)
  ns[i]  <- n
  # instead of a constant n we may use n obtained via sampleN.NTIDFDA()
  # then uncomment next line
  # ns[i]  <- sampleN.NTIDFDA(CV=CVs[i], print=FALSE, details=FALSE)[["Sample size"]]
  TIE[i] <- power.NTIDFDA(CV=CVs[i], theta0 = GMR[i], n=n, design=design, nsims=1E6)
}
print(data.frame(CV=CVs, GMR=GMR, n=ns, TIE=TIE), row.names=FALSE)


With n=12 we get:
   CV      GMR      TIE
 0.03 1.032106 0.049529
 0.04 1.043027 0.049529
 0.05 1.054058 0.049529
 0.06 1.065197 0.049529
 0.07 1.076443 0.049529
 0.08 1.087796 0.049529
 0.09 1.099256 0.049529
 0.10 1.110820 0.049529
 0.11 1.122489 0.049529
 0.12 1.134261 0.049529
 0.13 1.146135 0.049513
 0.14 1.158110 0.049401
 0.15 1.170186 0.048949
 0.16 1.182360 0.047774
 0.17 1.194633 0.045520
 0.18 1.207001 0.041949
 0.19 1.219466 0.037606
 0.20 1.232024 0.032688
 0.21 1.244675 0.027556
 0.22 1.250000 0.027744
 0.23 1.250000 0.031157
 0.24 1.250000 0.034106
 0.25 1.250000 0.036487
 0.26 1.250000 0.038232
 0.27 1.250000 0.039669
 0.28 1.250000 0.040685
 0.29 1.250000 0.041398
 0.30 1.250000 0.041859


But if we use n obtained to have a targetpower of 0.8, using theta0=0.975 we get:
 0.03 214 1.032106 0.051258
 0.04 54 1.043027 0.051405
 0.05 32 1.054058 0.051804
 0.06 24 1.065197 0.051418
 0.07 22 1.076443 0.051395
 0.08 20 1.087796 0.051232
 0.09 18 1.099256 0.051158
 0.10 18 1.110820 0.051158
 0.11 16 1.122489 0.050734
 0.12 16 1.134261 0.050734
 0.13 16 1.146135 0.050732
 0.14 16 1.158110 0.050705
 0.15 16 1.170186 0.050552
 0.16 16 1.182360 0.049877
 0.17 16 1.194633 0.048183
 0.18 16 1.207001 0.044852
 0.19 16 1.219466 0.040159
 0.20 16 1.232024 0.034550
 0.21 16 1.244675 0.028581
 0.22 16 1.250000 0.028871
 0.23 16 1.250000 0.033203
 0.24 16 1.250000 0.036778
 0.25 16 1.250000 0.039643
 0.26 16 1.250000 0.041844
 0.27 18 1.250000 0.044551
 0.28 18 1.250000 0.045817
 0.29 18 1.250000 0.046739
 0.30 20 1.250000 0.048178

Indeed a small alpha-inflation at low CVs'.
If we were Potvin-adepts this is a negligible alpha inflation, namely below 0.052.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
313 visitors (0 registered, 313 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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