Bioequivalence Design With Sampling Distribution Segments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In bioequivalence design, power analyses dictate how much data must be collected to detect the absence of clinically important effects. Power is computed as a tail probability in the sampling distribution of the pertinent test statistics. When these test statistics cannot be constructed from pivotal quantities, their sampling distributions are approximated via repetitive, time-intensive computer simulation. We propose a novel simulation-based method to quickly approximate the power curve for many such bioequivalence tests by efficiently exploring segments (as opposed to the entirety) of the relevant sampling distributions. Despite not estimating the entire sampling distribution, this approach prompts unbiased sample size recommendations. We illustrate this method using two-group bioequivalence tests with unequal variances and overview its broader applicability in clinical design. All methods proposed in this work can be implemented using the developed dent package in R.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it