Science vs. regulations [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-05-07 21:54 (93 d 12:43 ago) – Posting: # 21405
Views: 6,542

Hi Achievwin,

» Then a priori in the protocol SAP include limitations on reporting AUCinf and %Extrp.
» 1. R2>0.800

Why this – arbitrary – number? Given, I have seen it in lots of SAPs.
\(\small{R^2}\) (strongly!) depends on the number of time points \(n\) (see this rather old thread). \(\small{R_{\textrm{adj}}^{2}}\) is better though still not independent from \(n\) (that’s a misconception sold by software vendors).
If clearance is variable and/or the analytical variability is high, a low correlation may be perfectly fine, whereas in the opposite case even 0.9 may indicate a poor fit. Unless you have data of a previous study with the same analytical method, IMHO, a pre-specified cut-off does not make sense.
Furthermore, never trust in results of a silicon-based life-form. Visual inspection of the fit is mandatory.

PS: 0.8 with three significant digits: 0.8005 is OK and 0.8004 not. Really?

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
20,986 posts in 4,375 threads, 1,460 registered users;
online 22 (1 registered, 21 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 10:37 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

The interpretation of facts in a certain way
stimulates other scientists’ thoughts.    Róbert Bárány

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