Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorYoung, Dean M.
dc.contributor.authorMarkova, Denka G.
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-19T19:57:02Z
dc.date.available2011-12-19T19:57:02Z
dc.date.copyright2011-12
dc.date.issued2011-12-19
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2104/8272
dc.description.abstractThe double-sampling paradigm, which has become an important part of the epidemiological designs, includes two stages. First, individuals are classified into groups by disease and exposure levels using a fallible test, and second, some individuals are classified into a subset using a ``gold standard" test. The parameter of interest in our study is the odds ratio as an association between disease level and exposure level. Here we compare four confidence intervals for the odds ratio under the assumption of differential or non-differential misclassification. More specifically, we compare the coverage and interval widths of the Wald, score, profile likelihood, and approximate integrated likelihood intervals with different specificity and sensitivity values, as well as different sample sizes and odds ratios for the case-control clinical studies. Our investigations implies the consistent superiority of the approximate integrated confidence interval. Also, we eliminate the effect of several parameters on a bioequivalence testing procedure that plays an important role in the development of generic drugs. The current FDA criteria is not flexible with respect to highly variable drugs, and this characteristic has caused many good drugs to be rejected. Most often in the literature, we find studies examining the sample size or the within-subject variability as the main factors affecting the outcome of a bioequivalence test. Frequently, pharmaceutical companies have tried to convince the FDA that their product would meet the bioequivalence criteria just by increasing the sample size. Here we examine the effect of the between-subject variability as well as the effect of the mean ratio difference between the test and reference formulations. We use a Monte Carlo simulation to draw conclusions based on the importance of these two sources of variability and to show that simply increasing the sample size is insufficient to meet the bioequivalence criteria.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisheren
dc.rightsBaylor University theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact librarywebmaster@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.subjectCase-control studies.en_US
dc.subjectConfidence intervals.en_US
dc.subjectBisectional method.en_US
dc.subjectCrossover design.en_US
dc.subjectBioequivalence test.en_US
dc.subjectGeneric drug.en_US
dc.titleTopics in odds ratio estimation in the case-control studies and the bioequivalence testing in the crossover studies.en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsNo access - Contact librarywebmaster@baylor.eduen_US
dc.contributor.departmentStatistical Sciences.en_US
dc.contributor.schoolsBaylor University. Dept. of Statistical Sciences.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record