An Exact Method for Power Calculation for a Three-arm Clinical Endpoint Bioequivalence Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A clinical endpoint bioequivalence (BE) study aims to establish BE between a generic drug (TEST) and an innovator drug (REF). A placebo (PLB) is usually included to demonstrate the sensitivity of the study. BE is established if TEST is shown to be superior to PLB, REF superior to PLB, and TEST equivalent to REF. Therefore, an overall BE test for a clinical endpoint BE study is composed of two superiority tests (TEST vs. PLB and REF vs. PLB) and one equivalence test (TEST vs. REF). Previously, Chang et al (2014) calculated the sample size and power for an overall BE test based on one superiority test (TEST vs. PLB) and an equivalence test (TEST vs. REF) using the joint distribution of sample means and sample variances because ’it is not easy to derive the sample size based on the multivariate t-distribution’ (we call this a ZChiSquare method). In this paper, we propose an exact method to calculate the power and sample size for an overall BE test based on two superiority tests (TEST vs. PLB, REF vs. PLB) and one equivalence test (TEST vs. REF) using a multivariate non-central t distribution directly, which we call an Exact-t method. We also extended the Z-ChiSquare method to an overall BE test with two superiority tests and one equivalence test, rather than one superiority and one equivalence test as in Chang et al’s paper. Simulation shows that our proposed Exact-t method is computationally more efficient than the Z-ChiSquare method without self-writing codes to numerically calculate the conditional expectation of a multivariate normal distribution conditional upon a truncated Chi-Square distribution. When sample size is small, the Exact-t method generates more accurate results than the Z-ChiSquare method. The Exact-t method is recommended when calculating power and determining sample size for a three-arm clinical endpoint BE study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".