loosing specificity due to low sensitivity [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by mittyri  – Russia, 2017-05-09 01:28 (3321 d 21:55 ago) – Posting: # 17327
Views: 34,189

Hi Helmut,

you've made a great work! Won't it be published?
In your examples (simulations/practice) you showed the TxG test is not a good idea.
I was impressed by this:

❝ Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 17.91% of studies.


❝ b. T/R in both groups 1.00

❝ (i.e., no Group-by-Treatment interaction):

❝ Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 9.79% of studies.


❝ If you prefer more extreme stuff: T/R in group 1 0.90, T/R in group 2 0.90–1

❝ Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 40.35% of studies.


I see that the sensitivity is really low, but I think it is not a good idea to compensate it with low specificity (high false positive).

Once again, thank you very much! Wouldn't you mind to publish the code of data building for simulations?
—
Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,571 registered users;
167 visitors (0 registered, 167 guests [including 68 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:24 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Outside his own ever-narrowing field of specialization,
a scientist is a layman.
What members of an academy of science have in common
is a certain form of semiparasitic living.    Erwin Chargaff

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