New PowerTOST function(s) [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-09-22 16:27 (3465 d 09:31 ago) – Posting: # 15448
Views: 17,368

Dear Detlew,

welcome back! How was vacation on the lonesome isle far out on the high seas?

❝ Interesting. Seems another Mighty Oracle that went into labour and delivered a mouse.


:-D

❝ ❝ How could one estimate the sample size? Yet another method for the wish-list of PowerTOST?


❝ Should not that hard to modify power.NTIDFDA() to not shrinken the acceptance range. But in the mean time I suffer from names :cool: for the functions in PowerTOST.

❝ How should we baptize the new baby? Or better having an additional argument in the already mature power.NTIDFDA()? If yes, how to name this?


I would not add other argument(s) to power.NTIDFDA(). AFAIK dabigatran is actually pretty highly variable (see here: Cmax 59.9%, AUC 52.9% and the Australian PAR). BTW, if you add argu­ments you would have to change the default theta0 from 0.975 (to 0.95 or even 0.90?).
Will [image] con­fuse users. I would suggest new functions like power.RatioSFDA() and sampleN.RatioSFDA() instead. Let’s ask Ben as well.

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
23,409 posts in 4,921 threads, 1,669 registered users;
24 visitors (0 registered, 24 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:59 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once.
I have succeeded in proving
that those 700 ways will not work.    Thomas Alva Edison

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