Results from the comparison of D, G, and A efficiencies and the scaled average prediction variance IV criterion are presented for the central composite, small composite, Notz, Hoke, Box–Draper, and computer-generated designs. These design optimality criteria are evaluated over the cuboidal design region for three, four, and five design variables.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borkowski et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: