Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

ke versus t1/2 [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Helmut  – Vienna, Austria, 2016-07-20 18:31 (3163 d 06:53 ago) – Posting: # 16502
Views: 10,279

Dear Detlew,

❝ ❝ BTW, asking for a comparison of both k and t_½ demonstrates a lack of understanding of statistics. They differ only by a factor of ln(2). Any comparison will give identical variance, CI, etc.

❝

❝ I think here you err.

I stand partly corrected. Just checked one of my studies (never compared this stuff before).
λ_z:   99.66% (90% CI: 92.23% – 107.69%)
t_½: 100.34% (90% CI: 92.86% – 108.42%)

Within- and between-subject variances are identical. Hence, any conclusions (pass/fail) will be the same.

Note the PEs close to 100% (“proving” the assumption?) and 1/1.0034 ≈ 0.9966 (and so are the CIs: 1/CL_lower of one metric = CL_upper of the other). Hence, testing both is nuts.

—
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:

• ANOVA for lambdaz, half life and tmax in bear 2.7.7 mahmoud-teaima 2016-07-20 11:03 [🇷 for BE/BA] 
  • Egypt: Strange requirements Helmut 2016-07-20 12:25
    • Egypt: Strange requirements mahmoud-teaima 2016-07-20 14:12
      • Output is not from Phoenix/Winnonlin mittyri 2016-07-20 17:00
    • ke versus t1/2 d_labes 2016-07-20 16:05
      • ke versus t1/2Helmut 2016-07-20 16:31
        • ke versus t1/2 d_labes 2016-07-21 14:42
          • “double“ testing Helmut 2016-07-21 14:54
  • tmax in bear 2.7.7 yjlee168 2016-07-20 21:10
    • tmax in bear 2.7.7 mahmoud-teaima 2016-07-20 22:40
      • tmax in bear 2.7.7 yjlee168 2016-07-21 11:11
        • tmax results in R 3.3.1 and spss 20 on macos 10.11.6 mahmoud-teaima 2016-07-27 12:13