Impact of minimum stage 2 sample size on the TIE: example [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2016-12-30 17:50 (1598 d 06:42 ago) – Posting: # 16915
Views: 4,613

Ah, got it, thanks Helmut,

» (...a bunch of blah blah blah...)
» That’s pure reasoning (wetware). :smoke:

I think you are saying that:That is correct. I don't think it is something I personally can deduce logically by looking at the algo or equations, but it is a correct statement, I believe, based on simulations.
It is tempting to say power increases with sample size, and since type I error is a kind of power, this is the logic behind the observation. I think the issue is somewhat more complex than just that. These two-stage thingies are funny objects that defy all kinds of logic.

Does it change anything though?? I mean you and I both argued in the past that universally functional alpha's do not exist, so whenever someone makes a smart/clever/sophisticated/dumb/intelligent/braindead amendment to Potvin B or C etc, then simulations should always be undertaken to make sure the type I error is not compromised.

Pass or fail!

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,462 posts in 4,487 threads, 1,514 registered users;
online 16 (0 registered, 16 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 00:32 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

Garbage in, garbage out.
It’s very very simple.    Anders Fuglsang

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