Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-12-11 18:15 CET (UTC+1h)
 

forced BE? [Design Issues]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-08-07 15:58  - Posting: # 17672
Views: 1,567

Hi Hötzi,

» Right. But IMHO, the quality of bootstrapping depends on the input. Remember what you once wrote?

I had forgotten that :-D

Truth be told, my aging brain seems to have very little ability to remember anything farther back than 2 weeks. That thread was from 2009, I think the Commodore 64 was still hot back then and movies were in black and white?!

» OT: In your current signature you claim to have “an affair with the bootstrap”. Really an affair? I mean, does it respond to your love? Or is it just calf love?

Manuscript accepted last week. Details to follow. I used the bootstrop to solve a BE-related problem that no Sponsor apparently was able to find a solution to over the last five years. One reviewer was pretty upset (I even got spanked for using the term Sponsor). I hope it wasn't you :-D:-D:-D
I am trying to re-arrange a meeting in September; if I am successful I can give a 20 min talk about it at the event in Prague if anyone cares? It requires, though, that the paper (probably a one-pager in letter form) is published at that time.

I could be wrong, but…


Best regards,
ElMaestro

A potentially biased estimator may be a relevant estimator. The case of REML speaks volumes.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,550 Posts in 3,757 Threads, 1,089 registered users;
35 users online (0 registered, 35 guests).

To know much is often the cause of doubting more.    Michel de Montaigne

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed