New paper (method D for PE 0.90) [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2011-04-19 10:58 (5178 d 07:55 ago) – Posting: # 6918
Views: 26,357

Dear Helmut, dear all,

❝ ... It might be possible to adjust the α level for methods B/C as well, but this has not been evaluated yet.


This sentence of the paper is confusing me somewhat :confused:.
As far as I had understood the method D is a variant of method C with adjusted alpha level.

Moreover I don't share the authors view of "excessive inflation of Type I error rate".
In view of other Type I inflation allowed by the FDA, f.i. the inflation around CV=30% for the scaled ABE up to 6.5%-7% due to the regulatory sw0=0.25 (see this presentation, page 23) I would consider the inflations observed in the paper (max. 0.0547) marginal.

What makes me also wondering is that the alpha "inflation" is shifted to higher stage 1 number of subjects if the variability increases. This is somehow counter-intuitive to me. Small is beautiful?

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,673 registered users;
44 visitors (0 registered, 44 guests [including 14 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical researches can be divided into two sorts:
those who think that meta is better and those
who believe that pooling is fooling.    Stephen Senn

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