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

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-07-03 18:44 (3510 d 05:40 ago) – Posting: # 15038
Views: 8,605

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
23,379 posts in 4,913 threads, 1,661 registered users;
237 visitors (0 registered, 237 guests [including 25 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:25 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Science is what you know.
Philosophy is what you don’t know.    Bertrand Russell

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