Impact of minimum stage 2 sample size on the Type I Error [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2016-12-30 12:12 (1318 d 06:21 ago) – Posting: # 16910
Views: 4,415

Hi Helmut,

I am sure you are right but I can't follow you, I mean can't readily understand what question you tried to answer.
So let me ask the forbidden question: "Can you reformulate?"

» Higher sample size ⇒ more degrees of freedom ⇒ narrower CI ⇒ higher probability to pass BE.
» In other words, the TIE will also increase and one would have to use a lower adjusted α.

This is one thing I did not get. Does that logic also work when we simulate true GMR 0.8 or 1.25 for type I error? I find it hard to convince myself.

Somehow I guess regulators just wanted to say that inclusion of a single subject in stage 2 would not be ok. They are right and that is not rocket science.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,
ElMaestro

"Pass or fail" (D. Potvin et al., 2008)

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,988 posts in 4,375 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 19 (0 registered, 19 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 19:33 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The interpretation of facts in a certain way
stimulates other scientists’ thoughts.    Róbert Bárány

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