Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Apples are pears by comparing the weight [Two-Stage / GS Designs]

posted by Helmut  – Vienna, Austria, 2015-12-01 17:35 (3395 d 06:51 ago) – Posting: # 15685
Views: 13,528

Dear Detlew

❝ ❝ […] Much lower.

❝ Much lower than what?

TSD’s E[N] than GSD’s N.

❝ Your presentation of the GSD results is a little bit unfair. It seems that the expected N is 100.

I see.

❝ But thats not true: […]

You are absolutely right. As (almost) always. THX!

The line
  res[j,  7] <- sprintf("%.0f", max(cum))
should be replaced by
  res[j,  7] <- sprintf("%.1f", (1-tmp1$pct_s2/100)*n[1] +
                                (tmp1$pct_s2/100)*max(cum))

                E[N]   
            ───────────
expected N   GSD    TSD
───────────────────────
    50      71.3   63.7
   100      84.6   99.2
Interesting.

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! 
Helmut Schütz


The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

• Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Helmut 2015-11-27 19:05 [Two-Stage / GS Designs] 
  • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD ElMaestro 2015-11-27 19:54
  • “classical” GSD - E[n] d_labes 2015-11-30 11:15
    • Apples are pears by comparing the weightHelmut 2015-12-01 16:35
      • Apples are pears by comparing the weight d_labes 2015-12-03 09:16
        • Apples are pears by comparing the weight Helmut 2015-12-03 13:10
          • Oranges d_labes 2015-12-03 13:56
  • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Ben 2015-12-02 19:27
    • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Helmut 2015-12-03 03:11
      • “classical” GSD alpha's d_labes 2015-12-03 09:47
        • N sufficiently large‽ Helmut 2015-12-03 14:56
          • An other one with 0.0304 d_labes 2015-12-03 16:15
            • An other one with 0.0304 Helmut 2015-12-03 16:26
      • Adaptive TSD vs. “classical” GSD Ben 2016-01-10 12:43