Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  2018-06-20 09:06 UTC (UTC+2h)

Q&A published 14 March 2011 [BE/BA News]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2011-03-16 13:20  - Posting: # 6763
Views: 17,099

Hehe,

A simple linear mixed model, which assumes identical within-subject variability (Method B), may be acceptable as long as results obtained with the two methods do not lead to different regulatory decisions. However, in borderline cases and when there are many included subjects who only provide data for a subset of the treatment periods, additional analysis using method A might be required.
At the time of protocol writing you do not know if there will be data gaps. Therefore, you cannot write which evaluation method you will ultimately be using. This means (??) that one has to apply both methods, check if the BE conclusions are the same and then, in case there are differences, discard a method which gives unbiased variance estimates.

An advantage of Method C is that it directly calculates s2wr However, sometimes the algorithm fails to converge.
No, the Al Gore Rhythm will converge if the guy doing the statistics knows what he is doing in terms of controlling the ini-values and other optimizer settings (flat multidimensional likelihood surfaces are hypothetical).

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,396 posts in 3,909 threads, 1,175 registered users;
online 36 (1 registered, 35 guests [including 19 identified bots]).

The analysis of variance is not a mathematical theorem,
but rather a convenient method of arranging the arithmetic.    R.A. Fisher

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed