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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-04-23 15:14 (49 d 22:24 ago) – Posting: # 22322
Views: 536

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


» 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.


» 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

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

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
21,518 posts in 4,498 threads, 1,523 registered users;
online 8 (0 registered, 8 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 13:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If I find 10,000 ways something won’t work, I haven’t failed.
I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded
is another step forward.    Thomas Alva Edison

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