What a mess! [Software]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-01-09 16:18 (4910 d 13:34 ago) – Posting: # 9802
Views: 15,793

Dear Detlew,

❝ ❝ ❝ … thus we can't empirical test it via simulations.

❝ ❝ Not sure what you mean here. :confused:


❝ I meant that simulations with θL ≤ 90% CI ≤ θU do not give substantial different results compared to θL < 90% CI < θU. Thus we can't choose that alternative which is closer to the analytical power calculation results…


Ah, now I understand! Theoretically (!) it would be possible if one goes with the R-package Rmpfr allowing for high numeric precision or Maxima and run a zillion of sim’s. Would need a supercomputer in the backyard.

❝ … (of course via PowerTOST :cool:).


What else? :-D
In my future sim’s of alpha (rounded CI) I will go for a ratio 0.80 instead of 1.25 since all three algos we have discussed give the same results there. Nevertheless, more studies than the 5% expected will pass making a significant result difficult to interpret.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
127 visitors (0 registered, 127 guests [including 22 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Science is simply common sense at its best that is,
rigidly accurate in observation, and
merciless to fallacy in logic.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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