AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 17:01 (22 d 11:43 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 546

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 🖖
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
21,753 posts in 4,548 threads, 1,544 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 04:44 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

They were “so intent of making everything numerical”
that they frequently missed seeing
what was there to be seen.    Barbara McClintock

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