Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 13:12 CEST

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search


2018-08-15 11:02

Posting: # 19169
Views: 409

 Spelling out FDA's pop BE model [General Sta­tis­tics]

Dear all,

I am trying to spell out the underlying model of FDA's pop BE analysis used for in vitro comparison of signle actuator content and more. A link is here.

The players are:

The formulations (F, two levels)
The stages (S, three levels in FDA's example, but may be anything from one upwards)
The cans ("Cans in batch", C, at least ten levels)
The batches ("batch within formulation", B, at least three levels)

I was initially thinking
Y=F+S+C+B+ek where ek is N(0, MSWk), and where Y is the in vitro metric we are sampling, like SAC, and where we's consider C, possibly B and S random (?).

But since MSWk comes from sampling across stages, I am inclined to work without S, so
a. Y=F+C+B+ek,
where C and possibly B are random. When there is only a single sampled stage I guess this would then be
b. Y=F+B+ek where ek is then N(0, MSBk)

What's your opinion on a. and b.?
How would you formulate the models yourself?

if (3) 4

Best regards,

"(...) targeted cancer therapies will benefit fewer than 2 percent of the cancer patients they’re aimed at. That reality is often lost on consumers, who are being fed a steady diet of winning anecdotes about miracle cures." New York Times (ed.), June 9, 2018.

2018-08-17 09:18

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 19170
Views: 283

 Spelling out FDA's pop BE model

...maybe a post to the NONMEM users would be an option?


Kindest regards, nobody
Back to the forum Activity
 Thread view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,697 posts in 3,982 threads, 1,230 registered users;
online 20 (0 registered, 20 guests [including 14 identified bots]).

I have had my results for a long time:
but I do not yet know how I am to arrive
at them.    Carl Friedrich Gauß

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz