I love your subject line! [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2019-08-08 10:31 (567 d 16:02 ago) – Posting: # 20487
Views: 4,679

Ahoy, my Capt’n,

» » The precise model [:blahblah:]
»
» But on the other hand: Why then then include e.g. period?

[image]Cause otherwise eventual period effects would not mean out. ;-)

Given, sometimes one has to assume lacking period effects and everybody is happy with that. If an originator explores whether the drug follows linear PK, we have a paired design (SD → saturation → steady state) and compare AUC0–τ with AUC0–∞. A crossover would be a logistic nightmare.

» Let us for a moment disregard the actual wording. [lengthy beautiful explanation]

Exactly.

» […] For a parallel trial I think I want group in the model. If regulators don't like this, they can ask me to take it away. I happily do so without protesting. I am a sheep at that point. But not until then. :-D

Agree again.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,356 posts in 4,458 threads, 1,493 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 01:34 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Those who make no mistakes are making the biggest mistakes of all 
they are attempting nothing new.    Anthony de Mello

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