Treatment comparisons

More than 300 transcripts, identified in treatment comparisons, had a five-fold or greater difference in abundance. The ten most abundant SAGE tags identified in the UV-treated SAGE library are listed in Table 11.1. Greater than... 

Analysis of gem treatments comparison of nano-second and pico-second laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy... 

In solution theory the specialized distribution functions of this kind should appear in the theory of ion pairs in ionic solutions, and a form of the Bjerrum-Fuoss ionic association theory adapted to a discrete lattice is generally used for the treatment of the complexes in ionic crystals mentioned above. In fact, the above equation is not used in this treatment. Comparison of the two procedures is made in Section VI-D. 

Sometimes investigators say that Phase I studies are not clinical trials because there is no treatment comparison being made (except that frequently a placebo is employed). Such treatment comparisons are not a prerequisite for experiments. Because Phase I trials rely on investigator controlled treatment administration and subsequent structured observations, they are clinical trials. 

Spacek, W., Bauer, R., and Heisler, G. Heterogeneous and homogeneous wastewater treatment - Comparison between photodegradation with TiOz and photo-Fenton reaction, Chemosphere, 30(3) 477-484, 1995. 

Is one specific treatment comparison important . .. any aspects of multiplicity. .. should be identified in the protocol adjustment should always be considered.. .. an explanation of why adjustment is not thought necessary should be set out in the analysis plan. (ICH E9, Section 5.6)... 

This design is what we refer to as a between-patient design. The basis of the treatment comparison is the comparison between two independent groups of patients. 

CH04 TESTS FOR SIMPLE TREATMENT COMPARISONS Table 4.5 Data for fisher s exact test... 

We saw in the previous chapter how to account for centre in treatment comparisons using two-way ANOVA for continuous data and the CMH test for binary, categorical and ordinal data. These are examples of so-called adjusted analyses, we have adjusted for centre differences in the analysis. 

Alternative applications of these rules would be to use the best case value (or the upper quartile) for subjects in the control group and the worst case value (or the lower quartile) for subjects in the test treatment group. Certainly if the treatment comparison is preserved under such a harsh scheme then we can be very confident of a true benefit for the test treatment ... 

Note that this calculation must be undertaken on the blinded data to avoid any formal or informal treatment comparison. If such a comparison were to be made then there would be a price to pay in terms of the type I error. We will say much more about this in a later section dealing with interim analysis where the goal is to formally compare the treatment arms as the data accumulates. 

Disinfection with Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide. The comparison of the mutagenic activity of the DCM extract before and after disinfection treatment was studied by the Wilcoxon test. No statistical conclusions on disinfection effects can be drawn. However, the MeOH extract showed a significant decrease in mutagenic activity for the line 2 chlorine treatment. Comparison of the two disinfection treatments for the nonozonated GAC filtered water (treatment line 4) shows that chlorine disinfection yields greater mutagenic activity of the DCM extract than chlorine dioxide (Table V). 

Table 6.5 Efficacy of added microbial phytase in broiler grower and finisher diets control versus treatment comparisons at six weeks of age.

Note that performing multiple hypothesis tests (e.g., Student s t-test) may inflate the false positive rate. That is, the number of genes detected as active by chance alone will increase with the number of genes tested. For example, a microarray with 7000 features would require at least 7000 hypothesis tests per treatment comparison. Several methods have been developed to control the false positive rate, such as the conservative Bonferroni correction and the FDR control method (49). 

Dose proportionality could be shown for the dose dependent parameters AUC(o-inD> AUQo-t) and all the three possibilities of treatment comparisons(B vs A, C vs A, C vs B). The 95 % confidence interval contains all of the expected ratios. 

The interpretation of the pharmacokinetic variables Cmax, AUCs and MRT of insulin glulisine was based on 95 % confidence intervals, after ln-transformation of the data. These 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for the respective mean ratios of pair-wise treatment comparisons. In addition, the test treatment was compared to the reference treatment with respect to the pharmacokinetic variables using an ANOVA with subject, treatment and period effects, after ln-transformation of the data. The subject sum of squares was partitioned to give a term for sequence (treatment by period interaction) and a term for subject within sequence (a residual term). Due to the explorative nature of the study, no adjustment of the a-level was made for the multiple testing procedure. 

The time to maximum insulin glulisine concentration (Tmax) was analyzed by non-parametric analyses. 95% non-parametric confidence intervals for the respective median difference in treatment ( test-reference ) were calculated according to the literature. Pair-wise treatment comparison was made for the pharmacokinetic variables. 

---