Gambling with UN [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2010-05-06 13:00 (5885 d 14:52 ago) – Posting: # 5311
Views: 41,418

Dear ElMaestro,

❝ I think I will bet my money on CSH for future applications ("but the guideline says....").


Don't be so lightheaded with your money. The first million is the difficilest :-D .

For the ABE evaluation (Proc MIXED code) the FDA statistics guideline recommends FA0(2). And then "... In the Random statement, TYPE=FA0(2) could possibly be replaced by TYPE=CSH. This guidance recommends that TYPE=UN not be used, as it could result in an invalid (i.e., not nonnegative definite) estimated covariance matrix ...". Sic!

But if we look at the results via intra-subject contrast for the Scaled ABE evaluation it seems that this estimation method is implicit an UN evaluation.

What I really don't understand in case of a full replicate study (4-period study) why not use the results of the ABE code and then do the calculations for the scaled BE criterion?! All necessary terms are at hand, point estimate of T-R with CI (or SD), intra-subject sWR. :confused:

Ok, for the extra-reference design we don't have a working code via Proc MIXED.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,654 posts in 4,992 threads, 1,570 registered users;
145 visitors (0 registered, 145 guests [including 29 identified bots]).
Forum time: 03:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists often have a naïve faith that
if only they could discover enough facts about a problem,
these facts would somehow arrange themselves
in a compelling and true solution.    Theodosius Dobzhansky

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