Log in
RegisterAll the answers to questions never asked are here [RSABE / ABEL]
Dear FI, dear Helmut,
@FI: Chapeau! Argus eyes
.
See The unknown x here in the forum (but be warned: rather lengthy thread) and J. Detlors attempt to explain this difference.
I personally are more convinced of the formulas according to the two Laszlo's. Especially because there is no explanation in the Progesterone guidance for their "x". J. Detlors explanation is only a guess.
But the FDA's formula is better for making our sponsors happy, as Helmut's numerical example clearly shows. And sponsor's happyness is what they pay for
.
❝ The so called “x” (=PE²-SE²) in the Progesterone BE recommendation does not resemble the Em (=PE²) which would be necessary to have the identical formula for the Confidence limit calculation:
❝
❝ CL = Em-Es + √(Lm+Ls) ...
@FI: Chapeau! Argus eyes
.See The unknown x here in the forum (but be warned: rather lengthy thread) and J. Detlors attempt to explain this difference.
I personally are more convinced of the formulas according to the two Laszlo's. Especially because there is no explanation in the Progesterone guidance for their "x". J. Detlors explanation is only a guess.
But the FDA's formula is better for making our sponsors happy, as Helmut's numerical example clearly shows. And sponsor's happyness is what they pay for
.—
Regards,
Detlew
Regards,
Detlew
Complete thread:
- FDA Progesterone on HVD vs Endrenyi FI 2012-03-09 13:50 [RSABE / ABEL]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- FDA Progesterone on HVD vs Endrenyi Helmut 2012-03-09 16:36
- All the answers to questions never asked are hered_labes 2012-03-10 16:49
- Which book? Helmut 2012-03-17 14:46
- Which book? FI 2012-03-19 20:15
- Which book? FI 2012-04-02 11:07
- To standard err is also human d_labes 2012-04-03 10:56
Ing. Helmut Schütz