Category now obsolete? EMEA on non-parametrics [Nonparametrics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2008-08-22 15:31 (6108 d 17:22 ago) – Posting: # 2230
Views: 9,459

Dear DLabes,

yes, it’s unbelievable. It took these gurus 14 months (and 11 internal drafts) since the 'Recommendation on the Need for Revision of NfG on BA/BE' to come up with this

The second paragraph of ‘Statistical analysis’ (lines 500-505) with respect to tmax is bullshit anyhow. If I read it as a ‘cookbook’ (as intended by the authors) does it mean I should not only use a parametric method, but also log-transform data from a discrete sampling distribution?

This is a major statistical flaw. :angry:
If engineers in the aerospace industry dealing with rare events would apply statistical methods based on the Gaussian rather the Poisson distribution we would see quite a lot of plane accidents caused by wrong specs of mechanical/electrical/electronic devices.

After a quick look I only liked this one (lines 514-516):

‘A test for carry-over should not be performed and no decisions regarding the analysis (e.g. analysis of the first period, only) should be made on the basis of such a test.’


I’ll be opening a new thread collecting a critical review 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, 1,669 registered users;
171 visitors (0 registered, 171 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 08:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Only dead fish go with the current.    Scuba divers' proverb

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