adjusted alpha = 0.038 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2012-08-03 16:26 (4706 d 07:14 ago) – Posting: # 9032
Views: 14,863

Dear Detlew!

❝ Where did the αadj.=0.045 came from? Luckily guess? Or some Hermetism?


More an educated guess. With n1 12 and CV 10% a study is already large enough (fixed sample design 98.8% power) and chances to require a second stage are very low. Since Methods C/D allow for stopping in stage 1 with a 90% CI in these methods αemp. ~ αnominal. In Method B we have to pay the penalty and αemp. ~ αadj.. That’s even more pronounced for higher n1 and the same CV (where <0.1% of studies reach stage 2). So why not increase the level of αadj.? 0.045 was a quick-shot – maybe one can even go to close <0.05.

I will try a more realistic example (n1 36, CV 30%; fixed design power 77.2% and 81.6% for n 40). With αadj. 0.0294 Potvin got αemp.: 0.0397 (B) and 0.0477 (C); studies in stage 2: 29.0% (B) and 22.7% (C).
106 sims of Method B with αadj. 0.0380 (= quick-shot obtained from 104 sims) are running…
BTW, where do you think Method B’s 0.0280 came from? :ponder:

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,674 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 15 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:40 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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