Power<50% [Power / Sample Size]

posted by BEQool  – 2024-03-02 00:02 (77 d 15:06 ago) – Posting: # 23889
Views: 737

(edited by on 2024-03-02 08:47)

CI.BE() gives us the realized results (i.e., the values observed in a particular study), whereas power.scABEL() the results of 105 simulations. Both the CV and PE are skewed to the right and, therefore, I would expect that simulated power is lower than assessing whether a particular study passes. However, such a large discrepancy is surprising for me.

What about function power.TOST()? I think that it doesnt give us the result based on simulations? Am I right? And this calculated power is also way below 50% (similar to the power calculated above):

power.TOST(theta0=0.95,n=36,design="2x2x3",CV=1.1, theta1=0.6983678, theta2=1.4319102)

I can find more such examples :-) All are as expected close to the limit:
a) CI.BE(pe=0.95,n=36,design="2x2x3",CV=0.5)
    lower     upper
0.8089197 1.1156855


b) CI.BE(pe=0.95,n=36,design="2x2",CV=0.44)
    lower     upper
0.8033552 1.1234134


c) CI.BE(pe=0.94,n=18,design="2x2",CV=0.28)
    lower     upper
0.8011079 1.1029725



❝ If any of the metrics shows power <50%, the study will fail (see this article).

Is it possible that the opposite is always true and this isnt?
So that if the study fails, the power will always be <50%; but if the power is <50%, it doesnt always mean that the study failed (will fail)?

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,029 posts in 4,834 threads, 1,641 registered users;
34 visitors (0 registered, 34 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 16:09 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best–
and therefore never scrutinize or question.    Stephen Jay Gould

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