Fieller’s (‘fiducial’) confidence interval [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Belgium?, 2019-11-30 05:11  – Posting: # 20899
Views: 1,274

Dear d_labes,

you left me baffled.

» » For such cases we are setting logscale to False, right?
» Correct in so far if we use the approximation that the estimate of µR is (statistically) greater than zero. A very reasonable assumption for the usual metrics AUC and Cmax IMHO.

Please explain then what exactly it is that power.TOST calculates when I use logscale=F.
Does it calculate power for a hypothesis based on a difference or for a ratio?
Which difference? Which ratio?

» But this has than nothing to do with Fieller’s (‘fiducial’) confidence interval, a more correct method for deriving a confidence interval for the ratio of untransformed PK metrics.

The mention of Fieller was not mine. I am quite confused now, what it is power.TOST tries to calculate when I do logscale=F.

I am convinced the assuming theta1=-0.2 by default when logscale=F is a misnomer. theta1 is elsewhere understood as an equivalence margin expressed as a ratio and that can't realistically be negative. If powerTOST tries to emulate Hauschke's paper then -.2 is f1, not a theta.
We need to be careful here about f, delta and theta.

I could be wrong, but...

Best regards,

"Pass or fail" (D. Potvin et al., 2008)

Complete thread:

 Admin contact
20,804 posts in 4,355 threads, 1,447 registered users;
online 17 (1 registered, 16 guests [including 12 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:17 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Medical statistician: One who will not accept that Columbus discovered America…
because he said he was looking for India in the trial plan.    Stephen Senn

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