Replies to post #138359 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

You yourself have said that OBF means something very specific. In that sense, there is no "OBF" when you don't have equally spaced looks. Since the looks were 50%, 75%, and 100% here, we're already outside OBF in the sense you've propounded.

Try that in a court of law - bring in 100 statisticians with no skin in the game and they will all give the same answer. Everyone knows what OBF means in the context of unequal info fractions. So the answer from those 100 statisticians will not be the one you want.

the Lan DeMets alpha spend provision, and any parameters for calculating the boundaries desired.

Oh, you mean like using Pocock boundaries or Peto boundaries - but calling it OBF. Oh wait - that would be IDENTICAL to using the Pocock test or the Peto test. But maybe we can use the Pocock technique with OBF boundaries - oh, wait - that is IDENTICAL to OBF test. ...


The only fuzz on this peach is whether you are using Lan-Demets (or not) and other equally small differences. Not even a factor of 1.3 off - much less than the factor of 10 you are bizarrely hoping for.

Do you even get the irony in the above?

This one did:

WIZARD trial

How much do you want to bet it DOES NOT refer to their modification as OBF (without modifiers)?