Log in
Register‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments [Design Issues]
Hi Helmut,
Indeed. COVID, change of company and workload, study, ..., Pretty busy these days. Had to work day and night recently to catch everything up, so I had much less time to read the forum than before... But I'll be in Amsterdam this September for the 5th global BE harmonisation conference, so hopefully we'll have time to have a drink together
By the way, the Article section is new, am I right? (Don't tell me I missed this section all those years...) I am supprised that no one mentioned it in the forum. I don't have time to read the lengthy ones yet but I really enjoy the reading among the few short ones that I've picked.
What I understood about balanced IBD here is that, e.g., the number for A vs. F comparison should be same as number of F vs. A. So there should be 10 for each comparison for 20 in total.
If that is a correct understanding, it seems that for B, C and D, yes, but for A and E, not... There're 11 AF (FE) but 9 FA (EF). Shouldn't it be 10 and 10 like B/C/D vs F?
I tried the code and obviously I cannot reproduce your result as you said, but among the few runs I had, there is a run with 8 EF and 12 FE, 11 FA (BF) and 9 AF(FB)...
❝ long time, no hear!
Indeed. COVID, change of company and workload, study, ..., Pretty busy these days. Had to work day and night recently to catch everything up, so I had much less time to read the forum than before... But I'll be in Amsterdam this September for the 5th global BE harmonisation conference, so hopefully we'll have time to have a drink together
By the way, the Article section is new, am I right? (Don't tell me I missed this section all those years...) I am supprised that no one mentioned it in the forum. I don't have time to read the lengthy ones yet but I really enjoy the reading among the few short ones that I've picked.
❝ All extracted IBDs are balanced.
What I understood about balanced IBD here is that, e.g., the number for A vs. F comparison should be same as number of F vs. A. So there should be 10 for each comparison for 20 in total.
If that is a correct understanding, it seems that for B, C and D, yes, but for A and E, not... There're 11 AF (FE) but 9 FA (EF). Shouldn't it be 10 and 10 like B/C/D vs F?
❝ If you run the script, the chance to get the same sequences like in my example is 1/120.
I tried the code and obviously I cannot reproduce your result as you said, but among the few runs I had, there is a run with 8 EF and 12 FE, 11 FA (BF) and 9 AF(FB)...
—
All the best,
Shuanghe
All the best,
Shuanghe
Complete thread:
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments Helmut 2022-06-12 11:37 [Design Issues]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments Shuanghe 2022-06-12 19:02
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments Helmut 2022-06-12 20:10
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatmentsShuanghe 2022-07-10 00:05
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach; ≥3 treatments: new 🇷 script Helmut 2022-07-10 16:02
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach; ≥3 treatments: new 🇷 script Shuanghe 2022-07-13 15:35
- You’re a NE🇷D! Helmut 2022-07-13 16:46
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach; ≥3 treatments: new 🇷 script Shuanghe 2022-07-13 15:35
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach; ≥3 treatments: new 🇷 script Helmut 2022-07-10 16:02
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatmentsShuanghe 2022-07-10 00:05
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments Helmut 2022-06-12 20:10
- ‘Two-at-a-Time’ approach with >3 treatments Shuanghe 2022-06-12 19:02
Ing. Helmut Schütz