Bag full of bugs [Study Per­for­mance]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2014-06-10 02:37 (3989 d 04:25 ago) – Posting: # 13045
Views: 18,600

Hi Khaoula,

I’m too lazy to check with my old installation of Kinetica. But there are some points to note:

SOURCE       D.F      SS         MS        F        p

Period         1  0.0264787  0.0264787   0.56186  0.4669    NS

Subject(Seq)  13  4.8517     0.373208    7.91934  0.0003379 ***

Formulation    1  0.211625   0.211625    4.4906   0.05391   NS

Sequence       1  0.686301   0.686301   14.5631   0.002141  *** [image]

Error         13  0.61264    0.0471261

Total         29  6.38875


Old story. Kinetica calculates the sequence effect wrong – since ages. See this thread.
Instead of F=0.686301/0.0471261=14.5631 (which is highly significant with p=0.002141) the correct test is against Subject(Seq): F=0.686301/0.373208=1.8389 (which is not sig­nificant with p=0.1982).

Root Mean Square Error = 0.217086


The RMSE is a crude estimate of the CV and should be avoided.

                                  ; CV = 0.0347883 [image]


That’s nonsense! Is this part of Kinetica’s original output?* Why didn’t you bother to manu­ally calculate the CV according to the formula I gave you above?
\(CV\% = 100\sqrt{e^{0.0471261}-1} = 21.97\%\)

Power of the test = 0.500777 [image]

1 - ( Power of the test ) = 0.499223


Wrong. If you insist in post hoc power: 0.09885. With a T/R-ratio close to the upper limit of the acceptance range would you really expect a ~50% chance to pass BE in 15 subjects?

around the ratio:[test form]/[ref form])=[1.028, 1.3612] [image]


Yes, but around which ratio? I would guess: \(\sqrt{1.028 \times 1.3612} = {\color{Red} {1.829\ldots}}\) The geometric mean of Test is 559.01 and the one of Reference 461.21. As a first guess of the T/R-ratio we get 461.21/559.01=1.2121. Since this is an imbalanced dataset, we have to use the least squares (or adjusted) means instead, which are 552.58 and 456.58. Therefore, T/R=1.2103. What does Kinetica “calculate” here?

[image]Due to the bug in Kinetica this is likely wrong. In Phoenix/WinNonlin I got:

Hypothesis       DF    SS        MS       F_stat  P_value
Period            1  0.027982  0.027982  0.07021  0.79519
Sequence*Patient 13  5.181510  0.398578  7.49434  0.00045
Sequence          1  0.105223  0.105223  1.97847  0.18300
Formulation       1  0.271883  0.271883  5.11214  0.04155
Error            13  0.691389  0.053184

T/R 121.02% [90% CI: 104.22%, 140.53%]


BTW:
Parameter              Estimate
Var(Sequence*Patient)  0.172697
Var(Residual)          0.053184
Intersubject CV        0.434173
Intrasubject CV        0.233717


Check: \(CV\% = 100\sqrt{e^{0.053184}-1} = 23.37\%\). [image] Low for omeprazole, but possible.

If you want an independent evaluation by noncommercial software: In [image] (you find the script in my lectures) I got:
121.02% [104.22–140.53%] CV 23.37% [image]

❝ I havnt randomisation of subject 15, and then they put the result in kinetica they excluded him,


The randomization of an excluded subject is not required anyhow.



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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
131 visitors (0 registered, 131 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:02 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

If you shut your door to all errors
truth will be shut out.    Rabindranath Tagore

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