Log in
RegisterDeep shit [RSABE / ABEL]
Dear Helmut
» Duno what you mean. Are you considering the sample size of a 2×2×2 crossover? The sample size of the 2-period 4-sequence full replicate is ~½ though the number of treatments / biosamples (driving the study cost) are essentially the same.
»
»
»
»
»
» Try the functions
» The plots in the slide are all for ABEL. A comparison of ABE and the EMA’s (unadjusted) ABEL:
»
»![[image]](img/uploaded/image651.png)
»
» At 30% sample sizes are 40 and 34, at 40% 68 and 30.
»
» Hhm, not sure what you mean.
I just would like to say that it has no sense to conduct ABEL/RABE trials if the CV is assumed around 30% because, in order to control TIE, we have to increase the sample size to around that of usual ABE trials. It violates GCP principles in this case and invalidates the ABEL/RABE approach (subjects are subjected to unnecessary risks in the ABEL/RABE trials). And it very complicates the matter. Basically, when should we consider an ABEL/RABE trial?
Best regards
It also seems that when we wish to control TIE the sample size will be around 50 (worst scenario + dropout rate) in almost every case (usually little known about reference withindividual variability) of the ABEL/RABE. But I have rarely seen such trials.
Regards
Edit: Merged with a later (now deleted) post. You can edit your posts for 24 hours. [Helmut]
» Duno what you mean. Are you considering the sample size of a 2×2×2 crossover? The sample size of the 2-period 4-sequence full replicate is ~½ though the number of treatments / biosamples (driving the study cost) are essentially the same.
»
CV (%) ABE.2x2x2 ABE.2x2x4 n.ABEL n.ABEL.Bonf n.ABEL.adj n.Molins»
20 20 10 18 24 18 22»
30 40 20 34 44 42 42»
40 66 34 30 38 32 36»
50 98 50 28 34 28 32» Try the functions
pa.ABE() and pa.scABE() of PowerTOST.» The plots in the slide are all for ABEL. A comparison of ABE and the EMA’s (unadjusted) ABEL:
»
»
»
» At 30% sample sizes are 40 and 34, at 40% 68 and 30.
»
» Hhm, not sure what you mean.
I just would like to say that it has no sense to conduct ABEL/RABE trials if the CV is assumed around 30% because, in order to control TIE, we have to increase the sample size to around that of usual ABE trials. It violates GCP principles in this case and invalidates the ABEL/RABE approach (subjects are subjected to unnecessary risks in the ABEL/RABE trials). And it very complicates the matter. Basically, when should we consider an ABEL/RABE trial?
Best regards
It also seems that when we wish to control TIE the sample size will be around 50 (worst scenario + dropout rate) in almost every case (usually little known about reference withindividual variability) of the ABEL/RABE. But I have rarely seen such trials.
Regards
Edit: Merged with a later (now deleted) post. You can edit your posts for 24 hours. [Helmut]
Complete thread:
- Statistical evaluation and BE hypotheses in full replicate design Elena777 2020-01-28 07:02 [RSABE / ABEL]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- Inflation of the TIE as well Helmut 2020-01-29 15:38
- Inflation of the TIE as well Elena777 2020-01-29 20:01
- Tricky… Helmut 2020-01-30 12:07
- Tricky… Mikalai 2020-01-30 13:08
- Terrible… Helmut 2020-01-30 15:09
- Flawed evaluation accepted Helmut 2020-01-31 12:19
- Flawed evaluation accepted Mikalai 2020-01-31 12:40
- Flawed evaluation accepted Helmut 2020-01-31 14:17
- Flawed evaluation accepted Mikalai 2020-01-31 16:41
- Flawed approach even if accepted 😡 Helmut 2020-01-31 20:28
- Flawed approach even if accepted 😡 Mikalai 2020-02-01 16:18
- misunderstanding mittyri 2020-02-01 21:34
- misunderstanding Mikalai 2020-02-06 13:41
- misunderstanding mittyri 2020-02-06 16:23
- misunderstanding Mikalai 2020-02-06 13:41
- The globe is flat! d_labes 2020-02-05 19:16
- misunderstanding mittyri 2020-02-01 21:34
- Flawed approach even if accepted 😡 Mikalai 2020-02-01 16:18
- Flawed approach even if accepted 😡 Helmut 2020-01-31 20:28
- Flawed evaluation accepted Mikalai 2020-01-31 16:41
- Flawed evaluation accepted Helmut 2020-01-31 14:17
- Flawed evaluation accepted Mikalai 2020-01-31 12:40
- Tricky… wienui 2020-01-30 18:53
- Tricky… Helmut 2020-01-30 19:18
- Tricky… wienui 2020-02-03 07:10
- ABE vs. ABEL Helmut 2020-02-03 12:25
- zigzag d_labes 2020-02-05 18:53
- zigzag Helmut 2020-02-05 19:46
- zigzag Mikalai 2020-02-06 11:38
- helter-skelter Helmut 2020-02-06 20:12
- helter-skelter Mikalai 2020-02-10 16:10
- helter-skelter Helmut 2020-02-06 20:12
- zigzag Mikalai 2020-02-06 11:38
- zigzag Helmut 2020-02-05 19:46
- zigzag d_labes 2020-02-05 18:53
- ABE vs. ABEL Helmut 2020-02-03 12:25
- Tricky… wienui 2020-02-03 07:10
- Tricky… Helmut 2020-01-30 19:18
- Tricky… Mikalai 2020-01-30 13:08
- Tricky… Helmut 2020-01-30 12:07
- Inflation of the TIE as well zizou 2020-02-01 17:00
- Inflation of the TIE as well nobody 2020-02-01 23:30
- Inflation of the TIE as well Elena777 2020-03-10 19:28
- Fishing in the dark Helmut 2020-03-10 21:06
- Inflation of the TIE as well Elena777 2020-01-29 20:01
- Statistical evaluation and BE hypotheses in full replicate design nobody 2020-02-03 15:07
- TIE, repeat once more please... Astea 2020-04-02 12:41
- Inflation of the TIE as well Helmut 2020-01-29 15:38
Ing. Helmut Schütz