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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2019-11-30 06:11 (1098 d 16:58 ago) – Posting: # 20899
Views: 2,476

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.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,423 posts in 4,694 threads, 1,600 registered users;
17 visitors (0 registered, 17 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 23:10 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The rise of biometry in this 20th century,
like that of geometry in the 3rd century before Christ,
seems to mark out one of the great ages or critical periods
in the advance of the human understanding.    R.A. Fisher

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