Playing around with α (not exactly brilliant) [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-07-03 18:44 (4014 d 06:52 ago) – Posting: # 15038
Views: 10,010

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ – For any CV measured I can define a revised alpha that keeps the original acceptance range in place (80.00%-125.00%), and which achieves exactly the same (it rejects and accepts exactly the same products as your approach).


Yep, but (big but): Your α will necessarily be (much) larger than 0.05. Let’s not warm-up the dispute RA Fisher had with Jerzy Neyman. At least I don’t want to go there. ;-)

❝ I can probably work out an example if you need one?


THX, I do understand what you mean.

❝ My point was/is that changing the acceptance range for the CI in mathematical terms does exactly the same as keeping the acceptance range while changing the applied alpha.


Sure. Would you prefer to say “The risk for the patient to have a BA outside 80–125% of the reference is 31.42%”?

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
23,656 posts in 4,994 threads, 1,570 registered users;
231 visitors (0 registered, 231 guests [including 20 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:37 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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