no way out for NCA validation? [NCA / SHAM]

posted by mittyri  – Russia, 2019-02-20 22:22 (2678 d 21:05 ago) – Posting: # 19949
Views: 19,689

Hi Helmut,

from your lecture:
‘Black box’ validation
  • Run datasets with certified results (e.g., from NIST’s Statistical Reference Datasets Project).
    – FDA (2002)
    • Testing with usual inputs is necessary.
    • However, testing a software product only with expected, valid inputs does not thoroughly test that software product.
    • By itself, normal case testing cannot provide sufficient confidence in the dependability of the software product.

  • Create ‘worst-case’ datasets (extreme range of input, enter floating point numbers to integer fields, enter characters to numeric fields…).

So what is the problem to validate WNL NCA using the datasets (OK, not only from literature since there are so many troubles as you showed, but some simulated)?
All rules are written in the User's guide, so it could be crosschecked against handmade R code. Or should it be validated against another validated software (which does not exist)?

Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,571 registered users;
135 visitors (0 registered, 135 guests [including 30 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:28 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Scientists cannot simply hang their subjectivities
up on a hook outside the laboratory door.    Ruth Bleier

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