AUC * k [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2021-10-01 17:01 (65 d 08:37 ago) – Posting: # 22612
Views: 885

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
21,786 posts in 4,557 threads, 1,548 registered users;
online 5 (1 registered, 4 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 00:38 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The history of statistics is like a telephone directory:
the plot is boring, full of numbers and the cast is endless.    Stephen Senn

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