Selection of w and w* [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2018-04-26 20:02 (1276 d 10:13 ago) – Posting: # 18734
Views: 14,071

Dear Helmut,

» ...
» Using the median of n.tot to define the weights from the sim’s was a – maybe too naïve – attempt. Other suggestions? Some regulatory statisticians prefer the first stage in a TSD to be like in a fixed sample design. For some combinations of n1/CV in my grid this will be ≤ the median of n.tot. In other words, I’m not too optimistic but rather too pessimistic. Now what?

As I already said, DUNO really.

» Example: CV 0.1, GMR 0.95, target power 0.80. Fixed sample design’s n 8 (n1 ⇒ 12 acc. to GLs). n.mean and median of n.tot 12 with the default weights (0.5, 0.25). Even the 95% percentile of n.tot is 12.
» :confused:

If you were pesssimistic, so in the spirit of the MCT ist would be wise to choose the second pair of weights with decreased value. Or do I err here ("real" n2 lower than the pessimistic)?
If I'm right, possible values could be:
w=0.999, w*=0.5 (or something like that value)

Or we stay for that extremal case with the standard combination test?

But to state it again: For me it is a mystery how to choose the weights.
But I think it doesn't make so much difference if we are not totally wrong with our choosen weights.
As far as I have seen so far for a small number of examples: The power is influenced only to a "minor" extent. The TIE is controlled, whatsoever weights we choose.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,753 posts in 4,548 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 06:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

They were “so intent of making everything numerical”
that they frequently missed seeing
what was there to be seen.    Barbara McClintock

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