It seems you are assuming that those were the only
Post# of 153938
(Total Views: 488)
Posted On: 09/20/2021 10:52:01 PM
Re: Evil Rabbit #104883
It seems you are assuming that those were the only two variables that could have gone wrong, and they did. So, now we fixed them, and we are golden.
I think that is the fallacy that many of us (non-trial experts) fall in to. Misui has pointed out another potential problem (early discharge without further LL treatment). There are probably 10 others, which might only be obvious in hindsight.
There is a reason that this is really, really hard. I think that too many of us, in our optimism, just don't start from the spot that "most trials don't succeed.....it will be amazing if ours does." We start from the other side and are therefore surprised and disappointed.
I think Ohm even has stated that he had one concern about CD12 (uneven enrollment), and it came to pass.
I'm just saying that, from my limited experience, when we think a trial has a 90% chance of success, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. The math for success is really hard.
I think that is the fallacy that many of us (non-trial experts) fall in to. Misui has pointed out another potential problem (early discharge without further LL treatment). There are probably 10 others, which might only be obvious in hindsight.
There is a reason that this is really, really hard. I think that too many of us, in our optimism, just don't start from the spot that "most trials don't succeed.....it will be amazing if ours does." We start from the other side and are therefore surprised and disappointed.
I think Ohm even has stated that he had one concern about CD12 (uneven enrollment), and it came to pass.
I'm just saying that, from my limited experience, when we think a trial has a 90% chance of success, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. The math for success is really hard.
(4)
(5)