CV vs. sigma [RSABE / ABEL]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2010-11-09 21:11 (5344 d 19:46 ago) – Posting: # 6125
Views: 14,408

Dear Angus!

❝ The reason for the confusion is we do not know the calculation that is being made by Pharsight. Consequently we do not know conceptually it is incorrect or if there is an error in it.

  1. Right.
  2. I would say both.
  3. Five more hours have passed. I'm still waiting for a response at the Extranet (it's a bright day across the pond, isn't it?)...

❝ I had difficulty getting the same number you got so I must not be interpreting your equation correctly.

  exp(+log(1.25)*sigmaRef/0.25)


❝ For sigma = 0.30 I get 1.3221 for above calculation (when exp(+log(1.25) is used. Am I misunderstanding the parenthesis used? [...]



Don’t know, but let's see how to get this right. I didn’t check your parentheses business, but mainly you mixed up CVWR with sigmaWR, in other words you plugged in CVWR, whereas a conversion to sigmaWR is required first. See one of my lectures (slides 34pp): sigmaWR=sqrt(ln(CVWR²+1)).
For example (including all intermediate steps):
CVWR: 0.30
CVWR²: 0.09
CVWR²+1: 1.09
ln(CVWR²+1): 0.86178
sqrt(ln(CVWR²+1)): 0.29356 (Hurrah, that’s sigmaWR!)
ln(1.25): 0.22314 (Aha – the usual suspect: upper limit in log-scale.)
ln(1.25)*sigmaWR/0.25: 0.26202 (Scaled limit in log scale; note FDA’s magic 0.25…)
exp(±ln(1.25)*sigmaWR/0.25): 0.7695-1.2996 (Welcome back to the linear world.)

A word about the magic 0.25 in FDA’s method. Note that this value does not correspond to a theoretical start of switching of CVWR 25%, but corresponds to a CVWR=sqrt(exp(0.25²)-1)) 25.396% (sigmaWR 0.25). That’s the CV where the dashed lines in my plots intersect the conventional limits. If I recall it right, this value was chosen for convenience (if you are masochistic, follow the links here). Haidar et al. suggested 0.25 in their paper without any justification.

[image]

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,686 registered users;
45 visitors (0 registered, 45 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 17:58 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

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