Science vs. regulations [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-05-07 23:54 (255 d 08:57 ago) – Posting: # 21405
Views: 7,923

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
21,303 posts in 4,441 threads, 1,487 registered users;
online 8 (1 registered, 7 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 07:52 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science,
with epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle
and find our way by trial and error,
building our road behind us as we proceed.    Max Born

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