S×F vari­­ance: Followup [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by AngusMcLean – USA, 2015-02-06 20:36 (4151 d 23:51 ago) – Posting: # 14384
Views: 43,959

Thanks John: you are correct! the answer to your question is that I used a factor 0.5 in that equation {H1}. and that does not belong there as is evident in the source FDA Guidance. It is the other two parameters that are modified by the 0.5 multiplier.

Now your data checks out on my spreadsheet, since as you say the final value is

0.07358

The Phoenix calculation of WT was done on an adhoc basis by modifying the existing code (WR). What should be done is that workflow(S) should be created such that both WT and WR can be obtained from the same workflow or workflows. That way you do not need to modify the WR code each time you need WT as well as WR. After it is very relevant to have a comparison of WT and WR when comparing two formulations.

Therefore my spreadsheet now validates your calculations and I have corrected it.


Edit: Full quote removed. Please delete everything from the text of the original poster which is not necessary in understanding your answer; see also this post! [Helmut]

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
120 visitors (0 registered, 120 guests [including 26 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:27 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