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

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2019-11-30 06:11 (1548 d 09:29 ago) – Posting: # 20899
Views: 2,835

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
22,911 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,635 registered users;
32 visitors (0 registered, 32 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 15:40 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The history of statistics is like a telephone directory:
the plot is boring, full of numbers and the cast is endless.    Stephen Senn

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