<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Methodology on GTownDS</title>
    <link>/tags/methodology/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Methodology on GTownDS</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Stephen E Lane</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="/tags/methodology/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>Bayesian Adaptive Designs</title>
      <link>/2015/05/12/bayesian-adaptive-designs/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>/2015/05/12/bayesian-adaptive-designs/</guid>
      <description>Research design methodology—especially clinical and other research involving human participants—that can make better use of already limited resources should definitely be considered. Adaptive designs, outcome-adaptive randomisation, dynamic treatment strategies and sequential multiple assignment randomisation trials are some of the designs that are gaining momentum. But are Bayesian Adaptive Designs (BADs) really
 no longer &amp;lsquo;a dream for statisticians only&amp;rsquo;?
 as suggested by Gajewski et al. (2015)?
I&amp;rsquo;m not really sure this is true, and perhaps their opening line should be seen more as clickbait, as the authors really do not provide any solid evidence for this assertion.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>