swR 0.294 ≠ CVwR 30% [General Statistics]
Hi Shuanghe,
Yep, sloppy as usual.
\(\sqrt{\log(0.294^2) + 1} = 0.2935604 \ldots {\color{Red} \neq} 0.294\)
\(100\sqrt{e^{0.294^2}-1} = 30.04689\ldots\% {\color{Red} \neq} 30\%\)
Who cares about the fourth significant digit…
Regulators love simple numbers.
What does the EMA tell us? The switching variability is clearly defined as CVwR 30% (based on the paper of the two Lászlós). That would translate into a regulatory σ0 of 0.29356… and a switching condition \(\theta_s = \log(1.25)/\sigma_0 \equiv -\log(0.80)/\sigma_0 = 0.760128 \ldots\) Well, what do we have to use? 0.760. IIRC, Panos Macheras complained about it in one his papers about reference-scaling.
Picky: In code assessing ABEL (SAS, Phoenix/WinNonlin) only the 90% CI should be rounded to two digits, not the expanded limits themselves. Otherwise a discontinuity will appear close to CVwR 50%:
❝ In the "additional comments" of the same FDA guidance, they tell us in order to apply the scaled method the criterion is "within-subject variability ≥ 30%)", so clearly here the variability is not equal to variance since you need to do sqrt(exp(s2w) - 1)
to get it.
Yep, sloppy as usual.
[…] please provide evidence of high variability […] (i.e., within-subject variability ≥ 30%).
If swR ≥ 0.294, use the reference-scaled procedure to determine BE for the individual PK parameter(s)
\(\sqrt{\log(0.294^2) + 1} = 0.2935604 \ldots {\color{Red} \neq} 0.294\)
\(100\sqrt{e^{0.294^2}-1} = 30.04689\ldots\% {\color{Red} \neq} 30\%\)
Who cares about the fourth significant digit…
Regulators love simple numbers.
What does the EMA tell us? The switching variability is clearly defined as CVwR 30% (based on the paper of the two Lászlós). That would translate into a regulatory σ0 of 0.29356… and a switching condition \(\theta_s = \log(1.25)/\sigma_0 \equiv -\log(0.80)/\sigma_0 = 0.760128 \ldots\) Well, what do we have to use? 0.760. IIRC, Panos Macheras complained about it in one his papers about reference-scaling.
Picky: In code assessing ABEL (SAS, Phoenix/WinNonlin) only the 90% CI should be rounded to two digits, not the expanded limits themselves. Otherwise a discontinuity will appear close to CVwR 50%:
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- within-subject variance vs within-subject variability ViPraj 2017-07-27 07:05 [General Statistics]
- Variability for non-statisticians Helmut 2017-07-27 18:08
- Variability for non-statisticians ViPraj 2017-08-01 06:31
- Variability for non-statisticians Shuanghe 2017-08-01 10:07
- swR 0.294 ≠ CVwR 30%Helmut 2017-08-01 16:55
- Variability for non-statisticians Shuanghe 2017-08-01 10:07
- Variability for non-statisticians ViPraj 2017-08-01 06:31
- Variability for non-statisticians Helmut 2017-07-27 18:08