The n ext crackpot iteration [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-08-20 02:20 (1192 d 18:16 ago) – Posting: # 17717
Views: 24,963


some remarks. More maybe tomorrow.

» The polynomial provides a fantastic approximation within our entire interval of interest.

Played around a little. Based on the AIC the 4th degree is the winner indeed.

» ##note: We might not want to write blah^3 etc if we optimize for speed, not sure.

Old wisdom. Here with my coefficients (total sample sizes [not N/seq], exact method for GRM 0.95, 80% power, CV 0.1–1.0).

a <- c(5.897943, -40.988390, 603.109578, -338.281351, 70.43138) <- function(a, CV) {
  x <- a[1] + a[2]*CV + a[3]*CV*CV + a[4]*CV*CV*CV + a[5]*CV*CV*CV*CV
  x + (2 - x %% 2)
lazy <- function(a, CV) {
  x <- a[1] + a[2]*CV + a[3]*CV^2 + a[4]*CV^3 + a[5]*CV^4
  x + (2 - x %% 2)
res <- microbenchmark(, CV), lazy(a, CV), times=500L,
                      control=list("random", warmup=10))
boxplot(res, boxwex=0.25, las=1)

» ## perhaps ceil would be better?

I would round up to the next even (as above).

» You see, the sample size estimates are sort of almost perfect already. If you want to remove the very few 1's and -1's then just increase the polynomial degree above.

That doesn’t help. With CV <- seq(0.1, 1, 0.01) I got a match in 46/91 and +2 in 45/91. OK, conservative.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,206 posts in 4,425 threads, 1,481 registered users;
online 5 (0 registered, 5 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Tuesday 19:37 CET (Europe/Vienna)

All we know about the world teaches us that the effects of A and B
are always different—in some decimal place—for any A and B.
Thus asking “are the effects different?” is foolish.    John W. Tukey

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