The phrase "anticipated effect size" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in research contexts to refer to the expected magnitude of a particular effect or outcome in a study or experiment.
Example: "In our study, we calculated the anticipated effect size to determine the power of our statistical tests."
Alternatives: "expected effect size" or "projected effect size".
The anticipated effect size was judged from a similar project [ 24], where a medium-sized effect was found for the outcome of a physical activity intervention (d = 0.484), where the intervention group increase their total weekly minutes of physical activity by 59.3 minutes (SD = 126.6).
Participants were randomly selected from the more than 65,100 residents meeting the age criteria, with a final sample size of 1,036, which exceeded the prestudy sample size calculation of 142 (80 % power, 5 % alpha, medium anticipated effect size).
The anticipated effect size of d=0.5 is an estimate.
Specifying anticipated effect size of treatment relative to control requires assumptions.
The sample size calculation is based on the anticipated effect size of 0.2, and 7 predictors.
However, if the anticipated effect size is too large the study is under-powered.
Well done meta-analyses provide reliable information about anticipated effect sizes for clinical treatment decisions.
These differences are well within the anticipated effect sizes based on existing reports [ 17, 18].
Continuous development failures in the AD field have led to more cautious anticipated effect sizes - with consequently larger predicted sample sizes needed to show them.
Given small anticipated effect sizes and the inability to estimate power in most genome-wide studies conducted for discovery purposes, it is imperative that replicative studies now be performed in larger numbers of subjects with estimates of clinically meaningful effect sizes, measurement error, and potential confounders in mind.
If their opinion of anticipated effect sizes drives the design of the trial, rather than the opinion of a larger community of experts that includes sceptics as well as enthusiasts, there is likely to be a serious miscalculation of sample size requirements.
