MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Geometric Mean in Bioequivalence Trials

2015· article· en· W2116181250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdur Rasheed, Afaq Ahmed Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioequivalenceConfusionLogarithmNormalityGeometric meanMathematicsTransformation (genetics)StatisticsLogarithmic scaleEconometricsScale (ratio)MedicinePsychologyPharmacologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioequivalence data often do not follow the normality assumption on the linear (original) scale, therefore in that situation, the use of the logarithmic transformation is recommended. In the bioequivalence analysis, confusion arises about the use of geometric mean ratio when the logarithmic transformation is recommended by the regulatory authorities. The purpose of this research paper is to clear this confusion. Different average bioequivalence criteria are also reviewed in this paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.924
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.924
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.937
GPT teacher head0.740
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics in Medical ResearchSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207