Alternative CI for BE decision [Power / Sample Size]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-02-09 14:41 (2604 d 07:51 ago) – Posting: # 17045
Views: 24,751

Hi ElMaestro,

❝ If someone reports a CI of 0.8456-1.0000 to me, then it might in actuality imply a 90% CI of 0.8456-0.98765 or whatever. Is that science?


As zizou noted above it is less informative than the conventional (shortest) CI – we only know that the GMR is <1 – and we can’t calculate the CV from the CI any more.

❝ Why not just go all the way and adjust all CI's so that they span across 1.0 like...what was his name... some statistician twenty-thirty years ago.... his name was Lester Hamsterballs or something...?


41 years ago. Westlake. Wilfred J. Westlake.

Took me ages to persuade Pharsight/Certara to remove it from the standard output of WinNonlin (available till v6.3).

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
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
65 visitors (0 registered, 65 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:33 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Nothing shows a lack of mathematical education more
than an overly precise calculation.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

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