Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum • Conclusion

Conclusion [NCA / SHAM]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2019-04-17 17:42 (1834 d 12:47 ago) – Posting: # 20184
Views: 7,317

Hi Helmut,

thank you so much for comprehensive answer!

❝ I corrected a typo in your original post

forgot to execute it on clean environment, sorry!

❝ So what do you conclude?

pAUC is more sensitive, but the sensitivity is still low (nothing new...)

—
Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

Metrics for absorption Helmut 2019-04-15 12:08 [NCA / SHAM]
- Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-15 12:15
  - Metrics for absorption ElMaestro 2019-04-15 12:23
    - Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-15 12:39
  - Metrics for absorption Helmut 2019-04-15 13:02
    - Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-15 13:48
      - Metrics for absorption Helmut 2019-04-15 19:31
        
        Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-16 09:34
        
        Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-16 15:15
        
        Metrics for absorption Helmut 2019-04-16 17:01
        
        Metrics for absorption nobody 2019-04-17 11:15
        
        Simulation framework mittyri 2019-04-17 01:21
        
        Simulation framework Helmut 2019-04-17 13:31
        
        Conclusionmittyri 2019-04-17 15:42
        
        Conclusion & beyond Helmut 2019-04-17 17:05

Admin contact
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,656 registered users;
107 visitors (0 registered, 107 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: 06:30 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means. Martin Wolfsegger

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC

Ing. Helmut Schütz