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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2019-11-30 05:11 (791 d 08:22 ago) – Posting: # 20899
Views: 2,226

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
21,858 posts in 4,574 threads, 1,554 registered users;
online 17 (0 registered, 17 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: Saturday 13:33 CET (Europe/Vienna)

Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited
to open the way to the next better one.    Konrad Lorenz

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