New paper (method D for PE 0.90) [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2011-04-19 10:58 (5542 d 12:12 ago) – Posting: # 6918
Views: 31,020

Dear Helmut, dear all,

❝ ... It might be possible to adjust the α level for methods B/C as well, but this has not been evaluated yet.


This sentence of the paper is confusing me somewhat :confused:.
As far as I had understood the method D is a variant of method C with adjusted alpha level.

Moreover I don't share the authors view of "excessive inflation of Type I error rate".
In view of other Type I inflation allowed by the FDA, f.i. the inflation around CV=30% for the scaled ABE up to 6.5%-7% due to the regulatory sw0=0.25 (see this presentation, page 23) I would consider the inflations observed in the paper (max. 0.0547) marginal.

What makes me also wondering is that the alpha "inflation" is shifted to higher stage 1 number of subjects if the variability increases. This is somehow counter-intuitive to me. Small is beautiful?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
119 visitors (0 registered, 119 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:10 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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