Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Assumptions are not justifiable [General Statistics]

posted by Helmut – Vienna, Austria, 2009-05-26 17:41 (6229 d 13:32 ago) – Posting: # 3766
Views: 8,355

Dear Ohlbe!

❝ ❝ Therefore the analysis with the narrower CI should be considered the “valid” one. The acceptance by regulatory authorities even at that time was close to zero. Nowadays: no chance.

❝

❝ Nowadays: the analysis with the wider CI would be considered as the 'valid' one. 'Conservative' approach, they would call it.

Not quite so. I was quoting an argument which was used in the past. Considering the wider CI to be valid just because it’s wider, is no justification as well. We simply cannot decide which distribution is the ‘correct’ one based on the small sample size. Therefore a consensus was reached based on assumptions: Lognormal for AUC, C_max.
Remark: many people would go for an additive model (untransformed) for urine data…

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
Helmut Schütz

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

Complete thread:

Transformed and Non-transformed data kevan 2009-05-25 16:33
- Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) Helmut 2009-05-25 17:01
  - Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) kevan 2009-05-26 07:41
    - Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) Helmut 2009-05-26 12:29
      - Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) ElMaestro 2009-05-26 14:07
        
        Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) Helmut 2009-05-26 14:23
      - Transformed data analysis only (AUC, Cmax) Ohlbe 2009-05-26 14:24
        
        Assumptions are not justifiableHelmut 2009-05-26 15:41
        
        Assumptions are not justifiable Ohlbe 2009-05-26 18:42
        
        Assumptions are not justifiable Helmut 2009-05-26 18:46

Assumptions are not justifiable [General Sta­tis­tics]

Complete thread:

Assumptions are not justifiable [General Statistics]