Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Confirmatory trials may seek efficacy claims in a prespecified subgroup and the full popu- lation, although benefit outside the subgroup is uncertain. We measure power loss relative to the marginal level-α test available if the population to protect were known, using the same experiment. In a bivariate Gaussian model with known covariance, we minimise the largest power loss, or regret, over prespecified ranges of target and non-target effects, subject to strong familywise error control and coordinatewise monotonicity. We optimise over monotone closed- testing procedures with fixed marginal tests, allowing randomisation in the shared intersection test. Monotonicity places the worst non-target mean at its lower planning bound for each target effect. On the resulting reduced planning set, every least-favourable distribution is supported on exactly two efficacy scenarios, one for each target population. Under a condition on the effect ranges and covariance, the minimax procedure is nonrandomised and unique up to null sets. An integral criterion characterises exactly when a calibrated step-up procedure attains the minimax value within this class. Bounds for the continuous problem quantify possible improve- ments over simple procedures. An asthma planning example illustrates power allocation and the compatibility of target assignments with treatment benefits and burdens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: