adjusted alpha by sims? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2012-08-03 17:48 (4706 d 01:51 ago) – Posting: # 9034
Views: 14,872

Dear Helmut!

❝ 106 sims of Method B with αadj. 0.0380 (= quick-shot obtained from 104 sims) are running…


Don't overheat your machines :-D.

❝ BTW, where do you think Method B’s 0.0280 came from? :ponder:


If you mean Method D I guess: also from some trial and error.

Do you think doing some simulations in the planning phase and deciding the alpha's based on them will be acceptable to the mighty oracles in Europe?
What if the CV comes out other than supposed in the planning?

BTW: It's a similar question a good friend of our ol' pirate EM was once asked in respect to his method (see paper 6 of your post above):
"Do you think that it is acceptable to any regulator in Europe that the alpha of stage 2 isn't chosen a priori but depending on the results of stage 1, again via some simulation studies?"

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
48 visitors (0 registered, 48 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:40 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