To whom it may concern [Two-Stage / GS Designs]
To whom it may concern:
Power is the chance of showing BE for some given model at a given CV and GMR. The type I error is by definition the power when the GMR is chosen to be exactly on the acceptance border (either high or low, there is no difference). Thus power and type I error is for all practical purposes one and the same thing, all that differs is the applied GMR. Why on earth would you trust anyone's results after he/she types 0.95 on a keyboard and presses Enter, but not trust the same person typing 0.8 or 1.25 and hitting Enter?
There is a not a single equation or iteration that is not operating according to the same rule set when we simulate for power vs. when we simulate for type I error. The difference is solely in the value of a single variable.
And I was always taught that cherry-picking is not an option. Consider two BE plasma samples that are being analysed. They are the input into the exact same process. Whatever comes out of that process has to be trusted and it isn't an option for me to prefer one output over the one as long as the process they were subjected to was the same and valid. If I try cherry-picking I will be subjected to inspection and questioning, and that is really fair enough.
If we subject "0.95" and "1.25" (or "0.80") to the exact same process then we do not consider the output arising from one of them to be more valid than the output arising from the other. So can you please tell me that either both results can be trusted or that neither of the two results can?
Many, many thanks. I really mean it.
❝ (...)Yes. As said above this gives statistician hiccups. The ideal situation would be a proof for the type I error. Most statisticians accept simulations only for the type II error.(...)
Power is the chance of showing BE for some given model at a given CV and GMR. The type I error is by definition the power when the GMR is chosen to be exactly on the acceptance border (either high or low, there is no difference). Thus power and type I error is for all practical purposes one and the same thing, all that differs is the applied GMR. Why on earth would you trust anyone's results after he/she types 0.95 on a keyboard and presses Enter, but not trust the same person typing 0.8 or 1.25 and hitting Enter?
There is a not a single equation or iteration that is not operating according to the same rule set when we simulate for power vs. when we simulate for type I error. The difference is solely in the value of a single variable.
And I was always taught that cherry-picking is not an option. Consider two BE plasma samples that are being analysed. They are the input into the exact same process. Whatever comes out of that process has to be trusted and it isn't an option for me to prefer one output over the one as long as the process they were subjected to was the same and valid. If I try cherry-picking I will be subjected to inspection and questioning, and that is really fair enough.
If we subject "0.95" and "1.25" (or "0.80") to the exact same process then we do not consider the output arising from one of them to be more valid than the output arising from the other. So can you please tell me that either both results can be trusted or that neither of the two results can?
Many, many thanks. I really mean it.
—
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Complete thread:
- The EMA’s BSWP’s opinon Helmut 2016-03-04 15:37 [Two-Stage / GS Designs]
- The EMA’s BSWP’s opinon ElMaestro 2016-03-04 23:16
- Control of the TIE (empiric via simulations vs. proof) Helmut 2016-03-05 15:17
- To whom it may concernElMaestro 2016-03-06 22:59
- To whom it may concern d_labes 2016-03-07 11:41
- To whom it may concernElMaestro 2016-03-06 22:59
- Control of the TIE (empiric via simulations vs. proof) Helmut 2016-03-05 15:17
- Opinon? d_labes 2016-03-06 13:31
- Obsession? Helmut 2016-03-06 14:45
- Obsession? DavidManteigas 2016-06-02 12:57
- 0.0501 not acceptable Helmut 2016-06-02 13:30
- OT: Guernsey McPearson's Drug Development Dictionary d_labes 2016-06-02 14:44
- OT: Comparison Helmut 2016-06-02 15:59
- OT: Comparison d_labes 2016-06-02 16:42
- OT: Comparison Helmut 2016-06-02 15:59
- OT: Guernsey McPearson's Drug Development Dictionary d_labes 2016-06-02 14:44
- 0.0501 not acceptable Helmut 2016-06-02 13:30
- Obsession? DavidManteigas 2016-06-02 12:57
- Obsession? Helmut 2016-03-06 14:45
- The EMA’s BSWP’s opinon ElMaestro 2016-03-04 23:16