When it comes to a test problem, what about an antidepression drug?
our
Who’s that in case of a FDA approval process? The person who wants his drug approved or the FDA? If it’s the person who wants his drug approved, why don’t they just go into it with strong priors?
When it comes to a test problem, what about an antidepression drug?
You’ll need to be a lot more specific if you want a specific answer.
Who’s that in case of a FDA approval process? The person who wants his drug approved or the FDA?
It’s whomever is doing the trial.
If it’s the person who wants his drug approved, why don’t they just go into it with strong priors?
They will surely go with strong prior. However, it’s already like this even with frequentist methods (it just takes a different form): math cannot force honesty out of anyone. The advantage of the Bayesian approach is that priors are explicit, and others can judge them more easily.
The basic idea of how the FDA process works is that it’s extremely predefined and doesn’t allow the person who wants the approval to cherry pick statistics.
It seems like your approach is to provide more flexibility. Did I get the wrong impression?
I have no idea how the FDA approval process work, so if you tell me that it doesn’t allow any statistics variation then sure, I can only agree and say that the Bayesian method outlined (which not ‘mine’ for any stretch of the word) is more flexible.
When it comes to a test problem, what about an antidepression drug?
Who’s that in case of a FDA approval process? The person who wants his drug approved or the FDA? If it’s the person who wants his drug approved, why don’t they just go into it with strong priors?
You’ll need to be a lot more specific if you want a specific answer.
It’s whomever is doing the trial.
They will surely go with strong prior. However, it’s already like this even with frequentist methods (it just takes a different form): math cannot force honesty out of anyone. The advantage of the Bayesian approach is that priors are explicit, and others can judge them more easily.
The basic idea of how the FDA process works is that it’s extremely predefined and doesn’t allow the person who wants the approval to cherry pick statistics.
It seems like your approach is to provide more flexibility. Did I get the wrong impression?
I have no idea how the FDA approval process work, so if you tell me that it doesn’t allow any statistics variation then sure, I can only agree and say that the Bayesian method outlined (which not ‘mine’ for any stretch of the word) is more flexible.