No – futile! – test for G×T, pleeze… [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-04-23 15:14 (147 d 08:53 ago) – Posting: # 22322
Views: 885

Hi ElMaestro & PVRC,

» If this is a dossier for EU:
» 1. If you don't add a group effect, the regulator is likely to ask for it after submission.

Hundreds of studies accepted in the past without one. Seems to become increasingly fashionable recently.

» 2. If you do add a group effect, regulators are likely to ask you to submit a secondary analysis without it.
» :-D:-D:-D

Xactly.

» At the end of the day Group is a between-factor, like sequence. Thus, the discussion is quite academic if we look at the confidence interval.

Yep.

» Another matter of course is if we, for some reason or other, take an interest in the p-value of the group effect itself or group x treatment. The latter sends shivers down my spine.

Not even the highest dose of Schützomycin would help.

BTW, last month I endured a ‘Type A Meeting’ for an IND with the FDA.
I proposed to use ‘Model II’ without the stupid pre-test for a G × T interaction in ‘Model I’ because it inflates the Type I Error. Since writing a paper is on my todo-list for more than five years (:waving: Nastia; I’m still collecting data), I was referring to my presentation at BioBridges in Prague 2018 (see esp. the backup-slides). Was accepted. :-D

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,689 posts in 4,534 threads, 1,541 registered users;
online 6 (0 registered, 6 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 00:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Old beliefs die hard
even when demonstrably false.    E. O. Wilson

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