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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2019-11-30 05:11 (607 d 19:47 ago) – Posting: # 20899
Views: 2,096

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:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,592 posts in 4,514 threads, 1,532 registered users;
online 14 (0 registered, 14 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 01:58 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.    Arthur Conan Doyle

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