AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 19:01 (878 d 20:25 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 2,229

Dear Detlew,

❝ what do you think is a reasonable assumption about the distribution of the metric AUC*k?


Since both are lognormal, their ratio should be lognormal as well. I trust here Martin; will meet him in the evening and ask again. Furthermore, the distribution of values per se is not important, only the residual error.

One of my 4-period full replicate studies (143 subjects, Method A)

[image]


❝ Do we have to throw away our evaluation of BE studies assuming log-normal distri of the metrics AUC and/or Cmax?


Not at all – if they passed. ;-) Too bad if they failed and would have passed with AUC·k…

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [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
22,912 posts in 4,806 threads, 1,635 registered users;
33 visitors (0 registered, 33 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:26 CET (Europe/Vienna)

It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding
to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than negatives.    Francis Bacon

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