Transform or not transform [PK / PD]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2012-03-22 10:31 (4854 d 21:55 ago) – Posting: # 8310
Views: 8,626

Dear Helmut!

First many thanks for sharing this information.
Your pictures are a good example of the inherent difficulties in determining the distribution form empirical.

Thus I'm a fan of the arguments for the log-normal distribution via theoretical PK considerations (@EM: even if regulators have written down them in guidances :-D).

❝ I used to analyze HVD, t75%, and MRT untransformed and Cmax/AUC logtransformed ...


IMHO this is a good choice :cool:.
Although the residuals (and these count at least I think) don't show a very distinct picture.

BTW: Since these metrics (the ones you have shown) are usually not primaries then the question of their (their residuals) distribution is not so much of concern I think. I would handle them only in a descriptive way (mean, sd, median and ... and ...). Or do you analyze those metrics also via ANOVA and (1-2*alpha) CI's in a standard fashion?

My originally question was more in the direction of swing metrics. Do you have similar data for PTF or swing? As for ratios of two terms deemed as log-normally distributed I at least questioning a log-normal distribution. On the other hand one may argue with your results for Cmax/AUC ...


Geary 1947, Biometrika
Normality is a myth; there never was, and never will be, a normal distribution.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,427 posts in 4,929 threads, 1,681 registered users;
65 visitors (0 registered, 65 guests [including 19 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:26 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side
that you wish were on the other.    Thomas Berger

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