ABEL: Type I Error [RSABE / ABEL]
Dear all,
we know for a good while that under certain conditions the Type I Error (TIE) might be inflated. However, seemingly European assessors were either not aware of it or ignored it. Last week I saw a deficiency letter (don’t ask for the country):
Kudos! Almost correct. The area of inflated TIEs may reach below 30% and only rarely (say, for a 4-period full replicate in 24 subjects) to 45%.
we know for a good while that under certain conditions the Type I Error (TIE) might be inflated. However, seemingly European assessors were either not aware of it or ignored it. Last week I saw a deficiency letter (don’t ask for the country):
… in case of a value of 30% < CVRR <45%, it is recommended to check the control of the patient's risk type I error at the level of 5%. If an alpha adjustment is necessary, it is recommended that a BE estimate for the new CI of the T/R ratio be submitted to meet the extended bounds.
Kudos! Almost correct. The area of inflated TIEs may reach below 30% and only rarely (say, for a 4-period full replicate in 24 subjects) to 45%.
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- ABEL: Type I ErrorHelmut 2020-09-28 17:12 [RSABE / ABEL]
- Wow! d_labes 2020-09-28 17:51
- ABEL: Type I Error ElMaestro 2020-09-29 10:41
- Lost in translation Helmut 2020-09-29 10:49