At first glance it may appear that supermatrix methods are superior to supertree methods; however, both methods make a series of simplifying assumptions at different stages of data compilation and data processing that makes it difficult to judge which, if either, is actually superior.
There are few comparisons of statistical power between pharmacometric model based analyses and other statistical methods; however, both Jonsson and Sheiner and Hooker et al. have presented results that indicate that model-based methods lead to a reduction in study sizes.
As expected, mapping-based methods, including our pipeline, generally showed higher SP and SN at the intron and all-introns levels than the ab initio methods; however, both the SP and the SN drastically dropped at the CDS level when using GeneSeqer.
Note that this SPR set-up is in reversed assay format compared to the applied immunoaffinity isolation method; however, in both methods identical immunochemistry is involved to dissociate the Mab-OTA complex.
This method is, however, both time consuming and expensive, and removes the patient from his/her natural sleep environment.
In this context, two distinct techniques based on the RT-PCR derived method have been previously developed, however both methods are expensive due to the use of thermo cyclers and labeled probes.
Routine observation of ADRs by the practicing physician only identified 43% of ADRs, which increased when combining this method with CMS to 74%, however both methods failed to detect 26% of ADRs.
Such methods, however, are both expensive and intrusive and thus not feasible for studies conducted over long time periods with many subjects.
Direct comparisons of the five-point van der Heijde-modified Sharp and nine-point Genant-modified Sharp XR JSN scoring methods, however, found both methods to have the same discriminative power for XR detection of change in JSN over time, and between treatment arms [ 18, 19].
