Still SF [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-10-07 10:38 (1405 d 11:39 ago) – Posting: # 16704
Views: 10,908

Hi VStus,

lucid words about SF and great ideas about hacking embeded Linux-machines. :-D

I think that TSDs for reference-scaling are not so important compared to ABE. Let us consider two scenarios.
  1. CV higher than expected.
    • ABE
      • In a fixed sample design we loose power.
      • In a TSD with sample size re-estimation we proceed to the second stage and preserve power.
    • RSABE or ABEL
      The acceptance range is scaled and power is maintained.
  2. CV lower than expected.
    • ABE
      • In a fixed sample design we gain power.
      • In a TSD we have some chances to demonstrate BE already in the first stage. Hence, my personal recommendation for n1 75-80% of the fixed sample’s n.
    • RSABE or ABEL
      We loose power until we reach CVwR. Then power increases.

To summarize: In reference-scaling we have to consider lower CVs only. However, the potential impact is over-rated by many. What really hurts (in all designs) is a too optimistic assumption of the GMR.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,008 posts in 4,379 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 15 (0 registered, 15 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 22:18 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Statistics is the art of never having to say you’re wrong.
Variance is what any two statisticians are at.    C.J. Bradfield

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