Category now obsolete? EMEA on non-parametrics [Nonparametrics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-08-22 15:31 (6506 d 13:19 ago) – Posting: # 2230
Views: 10,986

Dear DLabes,

yes, it’s unbelievable. It took these gurus 14 months (and 11 internal drafts) since the 'Recommendation on the Need for Revision of NfG on BA/BE' to come up with this

The second paragraph of ‘Statistical analysis’ (lines 500-505) with respect to tmax is bullshit anyhow. If I read it as a ‘cookbook’ (as intended by the authors) does it mean I should not only use a parametric method, but also log-transform data from a discrete sampling distribution?

This is a major statistical flaw. :angry:
If engineers in the aerospace industry dealing with rare events would apply statistical methods based on the Gaussian rather the Poisson distribution we would see quite a lot of plane accidents caused by wrong specs of mechanical/electrical/electronic devices.

After a quick look I only liked this one (lines 514-516):

‘A test for carry-over should not be performed and no decisions regarding the analysis (e.g. analysis of the first period, only) should be made on the basis of such a test.’


I’ll be opening a new thread collecting a critical review anyhow.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,571 registered users;
130 visitors (0 registered, 130 guests [including 21 identified bots]).
Forum time: 04:51 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Always listen to experts.
They’ll tell you what can’t be done and why.
Then do it.    Robert A. Heinlein

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5