AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 19:01 (935 d 22:06 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 2,485

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
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,659 registered users;
68 visitors (0 registered, 68 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:07 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

So far as I can remember,
there is not one word in the Gospels
in praise of intelligence.    Bertrand Russell

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