New dataset? [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-05-05 13:40 (5879 d 11:42 ago) – Posting: # 5293
Views: 29,914

Dear Yung-jin,

if I look on your ANOVA results and the CIs I guess your single dose 2x2 cross-over dataset has changed?
Or is the difference solely due to rounding? :ponder:

IMHO it would be a very good idea to have the same demo datasets across the various versions. With that given one can make a short test of the reliability of bear results and we are talking always about the same numbers regardless which bear version we have currently installed (sometimes called backward compatibility :-D).

It would also a very good idea to have the same datasets regardless if we start from NCA or later with statistical evaluation, i.e. the concentration-time values of a demo dataset should correspond to the PK metrics used later.

BTW: I question your results! Full match of the results with log to full precision or with log rounded to 3 digits (after dec. separator), respectively, in the ANOVA's and the CI's up to the last printed digits has a probability of very near to zero.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,653 posts in 4,991 threads, 1,570 registered users;
129 visitors (0 registered, 129 guests [including 24 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:22 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The epistemological value of probability theory is based on the fact
that chance phenomena, considered collectively and on a grand scale,
create non-random regularity.    Andrey Kolmogorov

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