{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2023:VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK","short_pith_number":"pith:VLMCN63Z","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"aad826fb79b3423a764bc3c0e2e4edb2bff11f41d7c6b909643eb38fe49ff950","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2312.15222","version":6},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Is control of type I error rate needed in Bayesian clinical trial designs?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"stat.ME","authors_text":"Dario Gasbarra, Elja Arjas","submitted_at":"2023-12-23T11:05:19Z","abstract_excerpt":"Practical employment of Bayesian trial designs is still rare. Even if accepted in principle, the regulators have commonly required that such designs be calibrated according to an upper bound for the frequentist type I error rate. This represents an internally inconsistent hybrid methodology, where important advantages from following the Bayesian principles are lost. In particular, all preplanned interim looks have an inflating multiplicity effect on type I error rate. To present an alternative approach, we consider the prototype case of a 2-arm superiority trial with dichotomous outcomes. The "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2312.15222","kind":"arxiv","version":6},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"stat.ME","submitted_at":"2023-12-23T11:05:19Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"64d16e77177dde484c16c74ff6c49075e608a265f64a38db221d12d8dadea69a","abstract_canon_sha256":"0a909f7c61fad24afed9b8e1b77aad5a95b39cb5dfb74787b84071f7c6ee4952"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"aad826fb79b3423a764bc3c0e2e4edb2bff11f41d7c6b909643eb38fe49ff950","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.458558Z","signature_status":"unsigned_v0","first_computed_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.458558Z"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Is control of type I error rate needed in Bayesian clinical trial designs?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"stat.ME","authors_text":"Dario Gasbarra, Elja Arjas","submitted_at":"2023-12-23T11:05:19Z","abstract_excerpt":"Practical employment of Bayesian trial designs is still rare. Even if accepted in principle, the regulators have commonly required that such designs be calibrated according to an upper bound for the frequentist type I error rate. This represents an internally inconsistent hybrid methodology, where important advantages from following the Bayesian principles are lost. In particular, all preplanned interim looks have an inflating multiplicity effect on type I error rate. To present an alternative approach, we consider the prototype case of a 2-arm superiority trial with dichotomous outcomes. The "},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2312.15222","kind":"arxiv","version":6},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2312.15222/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2312.15222","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2312.15222v6","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2312.15222","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"VLMCN63ZWNBD","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SL","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"VLMCN63Z","created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.02410","citing_title":"Optimal sequential two-stage Bayes Factor Design for two-arm clinical Phase II Trials with binary Endpoints","ref_index":56,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK","json":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VLMCN63Z"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/VLMCN63Z","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2312.15222&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/VLMCN63ZWNBDU5SLYPAOFZHNWK/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-30T01:18:37.464271+00:00"}