Alternative CI for BE decision [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-02-09 14:41 (2626 d 03:38 ago) – Posting: # 17045
Views: 24,919

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ If someone reports a CI of 0.8456-1.0000 to me, then it might in actuality imply a 90% CI of 0.8456-0.98765 or whatever. Is that science?


As zizou noted above it is less informative than the conventional (shortest) CI – we only know that the GMR is <1 – and we can’t calculate the CV from the CI any more.

❝ Why not just go all the way and adjust all CI's so that they span across 1.0 like...what was his name... some statistician twenty-thirty years ago.... his name was Lester Hamsterballs or something...?


41 years ago. Westlake. Wilfred J. Westlake.

Took me ages to persuade Pharsight/Certara to remove it from the standard output of WinNonlin (available till v6.3).

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
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,661 registered users;
92 visitors (0 registered, 92 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:20 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity
is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.    Voltaire

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