Multiplicity? [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2024-11-23 14:05 (8 d 04:42 ago) – Posting: # 24295
Views: 363

Hi BEQool,

I forgot something. The GL states

… applicants should evaluate potential for heterogeneity of treatment effect across groups

In my understanding »across groups« means all pairwise comparisons. Then their number increases quickly with the number of groups and PK metrics. Let \(\small{n}\) be the number of groups and \(\small{m}\) the number of PK-metrics. Then the number of pairwise comparisons is given by \(\small{k=}\frac{n!}{2\,(n-2)!}\) per metric. The familywise error rate (here the chance to observe at least one false positive in any of the tests) is given by \(\small{(1-(1-\alpha)^k})\times m\). With \(\small{\alpha=0.05}\) in my example above we get 10%. In order to counteract that we should test with \(\small{\alpha_\text{adj}=\alpha / (k\times m)}\).
If that is done, the G×T interaction of Cmax would not be significant any more.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,328 posts in 4,898 threads, 1,662 registered users;
83 visitors (0 registered, 83 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:47 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Satisfaction of one’s curiosity is one of the greatest sources
of happiness in life.    Linus Pauling

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