EMA dataset I (PHX/WNL 8.1) [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-08-20 01:05 (645 d 13:33 ago) – Posting: # 21892
Views: 2,082

Hi ElMaestro,

» » A correlation >1 is funny.
»
» In a way you can compare it with the CoA of a reference standard which is labeled with purity = 101.2 %. It does not contain 101.2% - I guarantee it :-D - but that may stil be the most viable estimate.

That’s another cup of tea. I guarantee that it can contain exactly 101.2% indeed – regardless what the CoA says. ;-)

» It is all about how we estimate / measure it. We are not guaranteed to get the same model maximum likelihood if you keep the rho controlled between (exactly) -1 to (exactly) 1 with any iterative method regardless of your tolerance setting on the x- or y-scale.

Here you are right despite some weirdos laments.* The largest correlation in my 500 simulated data sets was for #168 with 7.285 (‼)…



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,108 posts in 4,630 threads, 1,567 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Friday 14:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

We absolutely must leave room for doubt
or there is no progress and no learning.
There is no learning without having to pose a question.
And a question requires doubt.
People search for certainty.
But there is no certainty.    Richard Feynman

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