{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreib44674py3vwwo4yrhwqdp3bh2ln54ifvkppwdaj4r5277b4gqkoi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfndeaz5utf2"
  },
  "path": "/t/one-sided-significance-threshold-of-less-than-0-1-in-phase-2-clinical-trial/28645#post_6",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-24T22:52:08.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "textContent": "As an aside - I am often curious about how many phase 2 trials actually end up, after further trials, with a clinically useful intervention. It probably depends on the field. This affects how we could interpret the p-values. For example, if 50% of phase 2 trials are of a new drug that is really better than the current drug (we just don’t know which 50%), then for alpha 0.1 and beta 0.8 (say) out of 100 trials, 5 would be FP, 45 TN, 40 TP, 10 FN - so a positive result would have a 40/45 probability of being TP and a negative a 45/55 probability of being a TN (though maybe we could make better estimates if we use the actual p-value post-hoc). I guess we don’t have the data needed to interpret this way (also I guess 50% is very optimistic - in one field I know the current rate is 0%!).",
  "title": "One-sided significance threshold of less than 0.1 in Phase 2 clinical trial"
}