Revisions of the PSGLs final [BE/BA News]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2023-06-23 15:29 (363 d 05:10 ago) – Posting: # 23612
Views: 2,793

Hi ElMaestro & all,

❝ ❝ Is this really the intention? The wider the range in tmax, the more easily products will pass. Counterintuitive.

❝ The intention, as I understand it, was exactly the opposite. It goes completely against all intention, doesn't it?

❝ I think this knowledge, if it holds in confirmatory simulations, should be published quickly and made available to regulators.

❝ I very much hope that regulators will abstain completely from letting pride prevail over the regard for the EU patient. So I hope they will not dismiss the argumentation. For example, I could fear they would dismiss your findings because they don't have a palate for simulations (but note they like simulations well enough when it comes to f2; bootstrapping is a simulation, too).


Final revisons of the PSGLs were published yesterday.Practically all comments/suggestions were  ignored  not accepted. The only relevant change is 80.00–125.00% of the reference’s median (from 80.00–120.00%). Good luck in sampling every five minutes. :thumb down:

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
23,059 posts in 4,841 threads, 1,646 registered users;
27 visitors (0 registered, 27 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 20:39 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Friends don’t let friends use Excel for statistics!    Jonathan D. Cryer

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