{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib4yye6wetsm5kxx2fobpryjld7nmfnm4knjzmldi2g6n4hjzlwti",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfkzimstx4l2"
  },
  "path": "/t/one-sided-significance-threshold-of-less-than-0-1-in-phase-2-clinical-trial/28645#post_1",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-24T00:58:48.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/146/Supplement%201/6/553639/Results-from-paradigm-a-phase-2-randomized-multi"
  ],
  "textContent": "Doing a phase 2 RCT using one-sided significance threshold of less than 0.1 is acceptable? I always thought that a one-sided significance threshold of p < 0.10 (10% type I error rate), a meaningful departure from the conventional two-sided α = 0.05. One-sided testing assumes a priori that the experimental arm cannot be inferior to the control, and under the null hypothesis, one in ten trials would yield a positive result by chance alone. Curious to hear from the experts.\n\nFor context this is the clinical called PARADIGM clinical trial in AML. https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/146/Supplement%201/6/553639/Results-from-paradigm-a-phase-2-randomized-multi",
  "title": "One-sided significance threshold of less than 0.1 in Phase 2 clinical trial"
}