Does unequal alpha distribution make sense? [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2015-05-29 11:31 (4047 d 21:45 ago) – Posting: # 14882
Views: 25,015

Hi Dr_Dan,

❝ Stage I:  0.001 leading to 99.8% CI

❝ Stage II: 0.0413 leading to 9?.?% CI ???


It is generally a 1-2*alpha confidence interval so in this case the coverage is 91.74%.

❝ For the sample size calculation for the second stage you use the GMR 0.95 or the GMR as calculated from stage I results?


So far no method has been published where the observed GMR can be used and where power is not suffering and/or sample size going through the roof. And equally troubling noone has published the proof that using the observed GMR doesn't work. I know at least three different groups of researchers (or two groups and one individual) have been looking at it. I think it is a matter of journals not wishing to publish negative results. Lack of these publications have already caused a few projects to fail as far as I know.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,572 registered users;
371 visitors (0 registered, 371 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real struggle is not between the right and the left
but between the party of the thoughtful
and the party of the jerks.    Jimmy Wales

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