AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 19:01 (490 d 18:52 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 1,597

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
22,478 posts in 4,708 threads, 1,604 registered users;
12 visitors (0 registered, 12 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:53 CET (Europe/Vienna)

If you don’t like something change it;
if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it.    Mary Engelbreit

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