loosing specificity due to low sensitivity [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2017-05-09 01:28 (2211 d 19:56 ago) – Posting: # 17327
Views: 28,605

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,

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,616 posts in 4,740 threads, 1,610 registered users;
15 visitors (0 registered, 15 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:25 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics.
I can assure you mine are still greater.    Albert Einstein

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