loosing specificity due to low sensitivity [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2017-05-09 01:28 (2601 d 01:08 ago) – Posting: # 17327
Views: 29,749

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
23,059 posts in 4,841 threads, 1,662 registered users;
37 visitors (0 registered, 37 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 02:37 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There are only two kinds of scholars;
those who love ideas and those who hate them.    Emile Chartier

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