Interesting! [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2017-03-29 13:20 (3369 d 23:05 ago) – Posting: # 17201
Views: 12,041

Hi DavidManteigas and d_labes,

❝ I'm also struggling with the question now. A 90% CI compares with a hypothesis test at 10%. The 90% CI is equivalent to a statistical assessment of equivalente at the 5% level due the TOST approach, since you're not assessing significance for the null hypothesis of difference in means.


I beg to differ; the 90% CI approach applies a 5% alpha. A product which in not truly BE (GMR is 0.8 or below; or 1.25 or higher, can't be both), will have at most 5% chance of passing BE; te CI is made from 1.0-2alpha but that does not mean 10% chance of approving a non-BE product.

It is the same alpha 5% that is used in the ANOVA where the null hypo is sameness.

If I am wrong here then it is my very basic understanding of statistics that needs thorough remodeling.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
170 visitors (0 registered, 170 guests [including 45 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

I have finally come to the konklusion
that a good reliable set ov bowels
iz worth more to a man
than enny quantity of brains.    Josh Billings

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