CVw in Phoenix RSABE-template [Software]

posted by BEQool  – 2024-07-30 12:56 (48 d 18:31 ago) – Posting: # 24105
Views: 2,230

❝ Do I get you right that you want to get the within-subject within-subject \(\small{CV_\text{w}}\)?


Yes you are right.

❝ [...] I got for the EMA’s Example Data Set I: 41.620277


Thank you for the explanation and equations, I get the same CVw for the EMA Data Set I.

❝ BTW, why do you need it?


Because I want to get CVw from a full replicate (n=10) pilot study and the a) CVw obtained with your equation (1) does not match (not even close) b) CVw obtained from the 90% CI with CVfromCI (PowerTOST in R).

a )
Var(Period*Formulation*Subject)_21=0.020549392
Var(Period*Formulation*Subject)_22=0.18248611

CVw=SQRT(EXP((0.020549392+0.18248611)/2)-1)= 32.7%

b)
Lower=80.633903
Upper=122.74948

CVfromCI(lower=.80633903,upper=1.2274948,design="2x2x4",n=10)
[1] 0.4048149
--> 40.5%

Why is there such a difference here between the two CVw? The study is balanced with complete data. Can the reason be a relatively big difference between variability of test and reference?

BEQool



BTW

❝ $$s_\text{w}^2=\frac{s_\text{wR}^2+s_\text{wR}^2}{2}\tag{1}$$

and

❝ You should get a table with the estimated \(\small{s_\text{wR}^2}\) in the first row and \(\small{s_\text{wR}^2}\) in the second.

A small typo here - \(\small{s_\text{wR}^2}\) appears twice :-)

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,225 posts in 4,879 threads, 1,654 registered users;
38 visitors (0 registered, 38 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:27 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure
nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something
you actually don’t know.    Robert M. Pirsig

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