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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2016-12-30 13:12 (2668 d 04:23 ago) – Posting: # 16910
Views: 5,754

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.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,655 registered users;
60 visitors (0 registered, 60 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:35 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The whole purpose of education is
to turn mirrors into windows.    Sydney J. Harris

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