Great post! [Outliers]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-02-07 10:37  – Posting: # 19887
Views: 1,562

Hi Zizou,

at a first look your arguments are convincing indeed.

A basic assumption in BE is that what we observe in the study is an unbiased sample of the population, i.e., the true (but unknown) distributions of the sample and the population are identical. Only then we can extrapolate the study’s result to the patient population (BE as a substitute for therapeutic equivalence). As stated in HC’s guidance parametric methods are not robust against extreme values. My example:

 n  method          PE       90% CI     CVintra  CVinter
12  LME           110.15% 77.60–156.36%  50.1%    NA   
(negative variance component)
12  ANOVA         110.15% 77.60–156.36%  50.1%    NA
11  LME            92.45% 78.34–109.11%  21.3%   22.2%
12  nonparametric  98.95% 76.24–130.06%   NA      NA   
(note: 91.78% CI)


Observations:Time allowing (ha-ha) I will try some sim’s where I replace one value with the true x±6σ. Asymptotics are generally fine if n≥30. Hence your suggestion for CV 30% makes sense (GMR 0.95, power 80% → n 40). But I will also try one with a lower CV of 15% (n 12).



Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,694 posts in 4,181 threads, 1,355 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 13:26 CEST

A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues
(or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and
to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment.
Arguments from authority are unacceptable.    Carl Sagan

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5