Bayes A-optimal designs for comparing test treatments with a control

The problem of comparing v test treatments simultaneously with a control treatment when k, v ⩾ 3 is considered. Following the work of Majumdar (1992), we use exact design theory to derive Bayes A-optimal block designs and optimal Г-minimax designs for a more general prior assumption for the one-way elimination of heterogeneity model. Examples of robust optimal designs, highly efficient designs, and the comparisons of the approximate optimal designs that are derived by our methods and by some other existing rounding-off schemes when using Owen's procedure are also provided.     

Optimal repeated measurements designs for comparing test treatments with a control

A-optimal and mv optimal repeated measurments designs for comparing serveral test treatments with a control are considered. the models considered are basically of two types: without preperides and the cirular model. It is shown known that some known strongly balanced uniform repeated measurements designs can be modified to obtain optimal designs for this problem. Some other methods of finding optimal designs are also given.     

Model robust optimal designs for comparing test treatments with a control

Families of designs are obtained for comparing test treatments with a control. They are simultaneously A- and MV-optimal for either one-way or two-way elimination of heterogeneity when the model of response is homoscedastic and linear additive. These designs can be easily cataloged.     

On bounds for the efficiency of block designs for comparing test treatments with a control

In this paper we study the class of augmented balanced incomplete block designs, which are used for comparing a control treatment with a set of test treatments. Under the A- criterion we establish a condition that enables us to determine the most efficient augmented design and we suggest some methods to compute a lower bound for the efficiency of these designs. For 3≤k≤10, v≥k, we list the parameters of the most efficient designs with a lower bound for their efficiency or, if known, mention their optimality.     

Optimal block designs comparing treatments with a control when the errors are correlated

The efficient design of experiments for comparing a control with v new treatments when the data are dependent is investigated. We concentrate on generalized least-squares estimation for a known covariance structure. We consider block sizes k equal to 3 or 4 and approximate designs. This method may lead to exact optimal designs for some v, b, k, but usually will only indicate the structure of an efficient design for any particular v, b, k, and yield an efficiency bound, usually unattainable. The bound and the structure can then be used to investigate efficient finite designs.     

Row-column designs with minimal units

A new class of row-column designs is proposed. These designs are saturated in terms of eliminating two-way heterogeneity with an additive model. The proposed designs are treatment-connected, i.e., all paired comparisons of treatments in the designs are estimable in spite of the existence of row and column effects. The connectedness of the designs is justified from two perspectives: linear model and contrast estimability. Comparisons with other designs are studied in terms of A-, D-, E-efficiencies as well as design balance.     

Crossover designs for comparing test treatments to a control treatment when subject effects are random

We study crossover designs for the comparisons of several test treatments versus a control treatment and partially generalize the results of Hedayat and Yang (2005) to the situation in which subject effects are assumed to be random. More specifically, we establish lower bounds for the trace of the inverse of the information matrix for the test treatments versus control comparisons under a random subject effects model and show that most of the small size (3-, 4- and 5-period) designs introduced by Hedayat and Yang (2005) are highly efficient in the class of designs in which the control treatment appears equally often in all periods and no treatment is immediately preceded by itself.     

Multistage methodologies for comparing several treatments with a control

We consider the problem of constructing a set of fixed-width simultaneous confidence intervals for the treatment-control differences of means for several independent normal populations with a common unknown variance. Taking c observations from the control population instead of the usual vector-at-a-time approach, purely sequential estimation methodology is developed and asymptotic second-order characteristics are provided. Brief remarks on the accelerated sequential and three-stage methodologies have been added. Next, with the help of simulations, performances of the purely sequential, accelerated sequential and three-stage estimation techniques are compared. Overall, the second-order asymptotics are found to provide useful approximations even for moderate sample sizes.     

Optimal and efficient crossover designs for comparing test treatments to a control treatment under various models

We study the optimality, efficiency, and robustness of crossover designs for comparing several test treatments to a control treatment. Since A-optimality is a natural criterion in this context, we establish lower bounds for the trace of the inverse of the information matrix for the test treatments versus control comparisons under various models. These bounds are then used to obtain lower bounds for efficiencies of a design under these models. Two algorithms, both guided by these efficiencies and results from optimal design theory, are proposed for obtaining efficient designs under the various models.     

Bayes a-opttmal and efficient block designs for comparing test treatments with a standard treatment

A sufficient condition for the Bayes A-optimality of block designs when comparing a standard treatment with v test treatments is given by Majumdar. (In:Optimal Design and Analysis of Experiments, Y. Dodge, V. V. Fedorov and H. P. Wynn (Eds.), 15-27, North-Holland, 1988). The priors that he considers depend on a constant α ε [0, ∞), with α - 0 corresponding to no prior information at all. The given sufficient condition, consequently, also depends on a. Large families of optimal and highly efficient designs are only known for the case α - 0. We will show how some of the results for α - 0 can be extended to obtain large families of optimal and highly efficient designs for arbitrary values of α. In addition, these results are useful when considering design robustness against an improper choice of α.     

Efficiency of experimental designs for comparing two treatments with correlated binary responses

In this article, we consider the efficiency of three experimental designs for comparing two treatments with correlated binary outcomes. This work is motivated in large part by the use of toxicological bioassays with laboratory animals used to identify agents capable of causing adverse health effects in humans, but has much broader research design implications. From the toxicological perspective, the completely randomized (CR), litter-matched (LM) and nested (NE) designs correspond to the random assignment of individual animals, littermates, or entire litters to either a control or test group. The randomization schemes underlying these three designs provide a framework for the construction of exact randomization tests for comparing the two treatment groups, and for the development of the asymptotic properties of these tests. The computed Pitman asymptotic relative efficiencies demonstrate that the LM design is the most powerful in the presence of positive intra-litter correlation, followed by the CR and NE designs, respectively. The relevance of these asymptotic results for the finite sample case is confirmed by computer simulation. The more detailed results presented in this paper will be of value in informing the design of experiments with two treatment groups involving correlated binary outcomes.     

Some group sequential procedures for comparing several treatments with a control

The purpose of this paper is to provide some group sequential procedures for comparing several treatments with a control. These procedures are the generalizations to the sequential sampling setting of the single-step procedure of Dunnett and the step-down procedure of Hochberg and Tamhane. When the responses are independent normal random variables with a common known variance, the critical values for specified alpha-levels are tabulated. The situation where the responses are binary random variables is also discussed.     

Some MV-optimal group divisible type block designs for comparing a set of test treatments with a set of standard treatments

In this paper, we consider experimental situations in which it is desired to optimally compare t-test treatments to s standard treatments using a block design in which the experimental units are arranged in b blocks of size k. A method is given for generating an MV-optimal block design for such situations and sufficient conditions are derived which can often be used to establish the MV-optimality of reinforced group divisible designs which are often obtained using the process given.     

Generalizations of Mathisen's median test for comparing several treatments with a control

A distribution-free test for comparing several treatments with a control is proposed for one-way classified data. It is advantageous to use the test in life-testing experiments where testing time is expensive. The proposed test has a shorter expected duration than a previously proposed test by Slivka(1970). The optimal allocation of the experimental units to the treatments for two situations are given. In a simulation study the power of the test is compared with the power of Slivka's test. An extension of the test for two-way classified data is given     

A method of power assessment for tests comparing several treatments with a control

A method of power assessment for the problem of comparing several treatments with a control is considered. Power assessment is based on the power function of a two-sided hypothesis test that none of the treatment is different from the control. Normally distributed data and binary response data are considered. Minimum power levels are found under certain easily interpretable range conditions on the treatment and control means or success probabilities. Expressions are provided allowing simple computer evaluation of minimum guaranteed power levels, and some illustrative tables of power levels are given.     

Optimal design of clinical trials comparing several treatments with a control

Clinical trials are often designed to compare several treatments with a common control arm in pairwise fashion. In this paper we study optimal designs for such studies, based on minimizing the total number of patients required to achieve a given level of power. A common approach when designing studies to compare several treatments with a control is to achieve the desired power for each individual pairwise treatment comparison. However, it is often more appropriate to characterize power in terms of the family of null hypotheses being tested, and to control the probability of rejecting all, or alternatively any, of these individual hypotheses. While all approaches lead to unbalanced designs with more patients allocated to the control arm, it is found that the optimal design and required number of patients can vary substantially depending on the chosen characterization of power. The methods make allowance for both continuous and binary outcomes and are illustrated with reference to two clinical trials, one involving multiple doses compared to placebo and the other involving combination therapy compared to mono-therapies. In one example a 55% reduction in sample size is achieved through an optimal design combined with the appropriate characterization of power.     

One-sided sign-type non-parametric procedures for comparing treatments with a control in a randomized complete block design

SUMMARY Non-parametric procedures are presented for comparing several treatments with a control when the data are collected in a randomized complete block design with no interaction. The procedures are generalizations of some well-known sign-type tests, and include both overall tests and multiple comparisons procedures. A numerical example is used to motivate the problem and illustrate the proposed methods. Some concluding remarks are offered.     

Mutiple three-decision procedure for comparing several exponential treatments with the best control

In this paper, the three-decision procedures to classify p treatments as better than or worse than one control, proposed for normal/symmetric probability models [Bohrer, Multiple three-decision rules for parametric signs. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 74 (1979), pp. 432–437; Bohrer et al., Multiple three-decision rules for factorial simple effects: Bonferroni wins again!, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 76 (1981), pp. 119–124; Liu, A multiple three-decision procedure for comparing several treatments with a control, Austral. J. Statist. 39 (1997), pp. 79–92 and Singh and Mishra, Classifying logistic populations using sample medians, J. Statist. Plann. Inference 137 (2007), pp. 1647–1657]; in the literature, have been extended to asymmetric two-parameter exponential probability models to classify p(p≥1) treatments as better than or worse than the best of q(q≥1) control treatments in terms of location parameters. Critical constants required for the implementation of the proposed procedure are tabulated for some pre-specified values of probability of no misclassification. Power function of the proposed procedure is also defined and a common sample size necessary to guarantee various pre-specified power levels are tabulated. Optimal allocation scheme is also discussed. Finally, the implementation of the proposed methodology is demonstrated through numerical example.     

Sample size determination in step-down and step-up multiple tests for comparing treatments with a control

We address the problem of sample size determination in multiple comparisons of k treatments with a control for step-down and step-up testing, assuming normal data and homogeneous variances. We define power as the probability of correctly rejecting all hypotheses for which the treatment vs. control difference exceeds a specified value. Our paper supplements papers by Hayter and Tamhane (J. Statist. Plann. Inference 27 (1991) 271–290) who solved the problem for one-sided comparisons using the step-down procedure and by Liu (J. Statist. Plann. Inference 62 (1997b) 255–261) who considered the two-sided case using the single-step method. We provide expressions that allow computer evaluation of the power and necessary sample sizes for one- and two-sided tests using either step-down or step-up procedures. Tables are given from which sample sizes to guarantee a specified power can be determined.     

Balanced Treatment incomplete block (BTIB) designs for comparing treatments with a control: minimal complete sets of generator designs for k = 3, p = 3(1)10

Bechhofer and Tamhane (1981) proposed a new class of incomplete block designs called BTIB designs for comparing p ≥ 2 test treatments with a control treatment in blocks of equal size k < p + 1. All BTIB designs for given (p,k) can be constructed by forming unions of replications of a set of elementary BTIB designs called generator designs for that (p,k). In general, there are many generator designs for given (p,k) but only a small subset (called the minimal complete set) of these suffices to obtain all admissible BTIB designs (except possibly any equivalent ones). Determination of the minimal complete set of generator designs for given (p,k) was stated as an open problem in Bechhofer and Tamhane (1981). In this paper we solve this problem for k = 3. More specifically, we give the minimal complete sets of generator designs for k = 3, p = 3(1)10; the relevant proofs are given only for the cases p = 3(1)6. Some additional combinatorial results concerning BTIB designs are also given.