Type‐II generalized family‐wise error rate formulas with application to sample size determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple endpoints are increasingly used in clinical trials. The significance of some of these clinical trials is established if at least r null hypotheses are rejected among m that are simultaneously tested. The usual approach in multiple hypothesis testing is to control the family-wise error rate, which is defined as the probability that at least one type-I error is made. More recently, the q-generalized family-wise error rate has been introduced to control the probability of making at least q false rejections. For procedures controlling this global type-I error rate, we define a type-II r-generalized family-wise error rate, which is directly related to the r-power defined as the probability of rejecting at least r false null hypotheses. We obtain very general power formulas that can be used to compute the sample size for single-step and step-wise procedures. These are implemented in our R package rPowerSampleSize available on the CRAN, making them directly available to end users. Complexities of the formulas are presented to gain insight into computation time issues. Comparison with Monte Carlo strategy is also presented. We compute sample sizes for two clinical trials involving multiple endpoints: one designed to investigate the effectiveness of a drug against acute heart failure and the other for the immunogenicity of a vaccine strategy against pneumococcus. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.162 | 0.472 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".