comparison with PHX [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by Oiinkie  – The Netherlands, 2013-01-23 13:58 (4477 d 18:31 ago) – Posting: # 9904
Views: 14,568

Dear Helmut,

Many thanks for your assessment!

subject(sequence) fixed, n=23/23:

❝ 104.76% (99.61–110.18%) CVintra 9.95%

❝ EMA wants only the last variant.


I am aware of these "rules" of the EMA ;-) (fixed rather dodgy); I also ran the analysis on n=23/23. The PE, 90% CI and CVintra mentioned in ANOVA_stat.txt are exactly the same! Statistical_summaries.txt gives 104.573% (99.430-109.981%). It seems that with transfer of the results from ANOVA_stat.txt to Statistical_summaries.txt (I assume the latter is compiled based on the former) something goes wrong for imbalanced data sets...

❝ Only Cmax since I don’t know your AUC-algo.


AUC would be AUC(0-t) calculated by linear trapezoid method (bear's standard; not the nicest one, but I want to stick with method of the CRO for this reanalysis of this very old study). AUC(0-inf) is not critical at the moment (secondary parameter).

Regards,

Oiinkie

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,670 registered users;
97 visitors (0 registered, 97 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:30 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

There are two possible outcomes: if the result confirms the
hypothesis, then you’ve made a measurement. If the result is
contrary to the hypothesis, then you’ve made a discovery.    Enrico Fermi

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