loosing specificity due to low sensitivity [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by mittyri  – Russia, 2017-05-09 01:28 (2967 d 15:32 ago) – Posting: # 17327
Views: 31,530

Hi Helmut,

you've made a great work! Won't it be published?
In your examples (simulations/practice) you showed the TxG test is not a good idea.
I was impressed by this:

Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 17.91% of studies.


❝ b. T/R in both groups 1.00

❝ (i.e., no Group-by-Treatment interaction):

Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 9.79% of studies.


❝ If you prefer more extreme stuff: T/R in group 1 0.90, T/R in group 2 0.90–1

Model 1: p(G×T) <0.1 in 40.35% of studies.


I see that the sensitivity is really low, but I think it is not a good idea to compensate it with low specificity (high false positive).

Once again, thank you very much! Wouldn't you mind to publish the code of data building for simulations?

Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,672 registered users;
39 visitors (0 registered, 39 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:01 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Reach for the stars,
even if you have to stand on a cactus.    Susan Longacre

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