REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Multivariate Adjustments for Average Equivalence Testing
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the conservative multivariate TOST for average equivalence can be made exactly size $\alpha$ in finite samples by raising the test level to a corrected $\alpha^*$ that solves a fixed-point equation, yielding a…
desk verdict Multivariate α-TOST is a real improvement over multivariate TOST for bioequivalence, but the size guarantee rests on an unspecified global optimization of the worst-case null vector. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the size map of the multivariate TOST, $p(\alpha, \theta, \Sigma, \nu, c) = \Pr\left(\bigcap_{j=1}^m \{|\hat\theta_j| \leq c - t_{\alpha,\nu} \hat\sigma_j\}\right)$, computed by integrating a multivariate normal density over outcome-dependent limits against a Wishart density for the covariance estimate (equation 7). Its supremum over the null space $\theta \notin \Theta_1$ defines the test size, and the argument achieving that supremum, $\lambda(\alpha, \Sigma)$ in equation (8), is the quantity that makes the multivariate problem hard: unlike in one dimension, $\lambda$ moves with the level $\alpha$ and with the covariance structure, and it generally has no closed form. The adjustment $\alpha^*(\Omega)$ is the fixed point of the level-to-size map defined by equation (12), and the paper computes it with a two-loop iteration: an inner loop applies the first-order update $\alpha_k = \alpha_{k-1} + \alpha - p(\alpha_{k-1}, \lambda, \Omega, \nu, c)$, which converges exponentially once the size curve satisfies $0 < p'(\gamma) < 2$, and an outer loop re-computes $\lambda$ at each new level until the size equals $\alpha$. Existence of the solution is governed by a threshold on the largest variance, which in the independence case reads $\sigma_{\max} < 2c/\Phi^{-1}(\alpha^{1/m} + 1/2)$ and is argued to be easily satisfied in practice.
What would settle it
Run Algorithm 1 on a heteroscedastic $m = 4$ configuration similar to the case study's covariance, but with the $\lambda$-search performed from many random starting points on the null boundary. If different restarts return measurably different $\hat\alpha^*$ values whose associated true suprema of $p(\hat\alpha^*, \theta, \Sigma, \nu, c)$ over $\theta \notin \Theta_1$ (evaluated by dense grid or large Monte Carlo) deviate from $\alpha$ by more than Monte Carlo error, the global-optimization premise fails and the exact-size claim is not delivered by the algorithm as written. A second check: numerically evaluate $0 < p'(\gamma) < 2$ along the iteration path in that setting — a violation means the exponential-convergence proof does not apply and the output level's exactness is unsupported.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the multivariate TOST size — the supremum of the probability of declaring equivalence over the null hypothesis space — is strictly below $\alpha$, decays sharply as the number of outcomes grows, and is driven mainly by the largest outcome variance and the weakest dependence, so that power often collapses to zero. The proposed fix is the multivariate $\alpha$-TOST: replace $\alpha$ by $\alpha^*(\Omega)$, defined in equation (12) as the value in $[\alpha, 0.5)$ at which $p(\gamma, \lambda(\gamma,\Omega), \Omega, \nu, c) = \alpha$, where $\lambda(\gamma,\Omega)$ is the set of null-space parameter values maximizing the rejection probability. For $\Omega = \Sigma$ the paper proves the procedure is exactly size $\alpha$ (existence conditions supplied, most explicitly for the independence case as $\sigma_{\max} < 2c/\Phi^{-1}(\alpha^{1/m} + 1/2)$); for $\Omega = \hat\Sigma$ it proves $\hat\alpha^* = \alpha^* + o_p(\nu^{-1})$, i.e., the estimated adjustment converges faster than the other random quantities in the problem, and simulations show the feasible procedure's empirical size stays at or below $\alpha$. The monotonicity $\alpha^* \geq \alpha$ then implies the rejection region of the $\alpha$-TOST contains that of the multivariate TOST, so the test is uniformly more powerful, a property the paper exhibits both in an extensive simulation study and in a re-analysis of the ticlopidine hydrochloride bioequivalence data, where the conventional test fails to declare equivalence and the corrected test succeeds.
Load-bearing premise
Everything rests on reliably finding the global worst-case parameter $\lambda$ that maximizes the rejection probability over the null boundary — the algorithm invokes this search without a guarantee of global optimality — together with the 'usually satisfied' condition $0 < p'(\gamma) < 2$ that makes the fixed-point iteration converge to the unique $\alpha^*$; neither is verified for the $m = 4$ settings of the case study.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- A multivariate bioequivalence assessment (e.g., $C_{\max}$ and AUC jointly) can use the $\alpha$-TOST at level $\alpha^*$ instead of $\alpha$, recovering power that the per-outcome interval check loses, without changing the interpretation of the intervals.
- The method is finite-sample: at the population level it is exact for any $\nu$, and the estimated version's size error is negligible relative to the estimation error of means and variances.
- Settings with large variances on any outcome — the highly-variable-drug scenario — gain the most, since the size gap that $\alpha^*$ corrects is driven by the largest $\sigma_j$.
- In the case study the correction is mild ($\hat\alpha^* \approx 0.058$) yet sufficient: the $\alpha$-TOST declares bioequivalence of the two ticlopidine formulations where the conventional TOST cannot.
- Because $\alpha^* \geq \alpha$ always, the $\alpha$-TOST is a uniform power improvement, so no scenario exists in which the corrected test is harder to pass than the conventional one (at the population level).
Reading between the lines
- The same fixed-point scheme transfers to asymmetric equivalence margins or to other intersection-union tests, as long as the null-space argmax $\lambda$ can still be evaluated; the paper only develops the symmetric-margin case.
- The practical guarantee depends on the $\lambda$-search being global; a cheap robustness check for applied users is to restart the optimization from several boundary points and confirm $\hat\alpha^*$ is stable, a diagnostic the paper's implementation does not report.
- The paper's conjecture that the feasible procedure errs on the conservative side (empirical size below $\alpha$) is itself a regulatory asset: for approval decisions, a size-controlled test that is slightly conservative is safer than one that is exact but numerically fragile.
- Replacing $\hat\Sigma$ by a robust covariance estimate in the $\alpha^*$ map is a natural follow-up, since the paper flags outliers as the main open threat to the size guarantees.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a multivariate extension of the univariate α-TOST procedure for average equivalence testing. For a given covariance matrix Ω, the adjusted level α*(Ω) is defined in Eq. (12) as the zero of the size function p(γ, λ(γ, Ω), Ω, ν, c) − α, where λ(γ, Ω) is the supremum point of the rejection probability over the null parameter space. The authors claim that, when Ω is the true covariance, the resulting procedure is exactly size α, that the estimated version satisfies pα* = α* + op(ν^{−1}), and that, because α*(Ω) ≥ α, the multivariate α-TOST is uniformly more powerful than the conventional multivariate TOST. The paper presents an iterative algorithm, a simulation study with m ∈ {2,4}, and a re-analysis of the ticlopidine hydrochloride bioequivalence case study with m = 4.
Significance. If the computational and regularity premises hold, the paper gives practitioners a finite-sample size-corrected multivariate equivalence test with power superior to the conventional TOST, which is known to become very conservative as m grows. The extension is nontrivial because the argmax point λ in Eq. (8) depends on the candidate level γ, requiring a nested optimization. The paper provides a formal asymptotic argument in Appendix D, a convergence argument in Appendix E, and an extensive simulation study, and it makes an R implementation available in the cTOST package. However, the central size guarantee is conditional on the ability to compute the global supremum in Eq. (8), and this step is not specified or verified. The claimed uniform power advantage is rigorously justified only for the population-level adjustment, not for the feasible estimated version.
major comments (4)
- [§4.2, Algorithm 1; Eqs. (8)–(12)] The size-α property is only as strong as the computation of λ(γ, Ω) in Eq. (8), which is a non-convex supremum over the null boundary of the m-dimensional hypercube. Algorithm 1 invokes 'compute λ(α*(r))' in steps 1 and 10 (and Algorithm 2 does the same in steps 2 and 14) without specifying a global optimizer or providing evidence that the routine used attains the supremum. Moreover, each evaluation of p in Eq. (7) is a high-dimensional integral over a Wishart distribution, typically approximated by Monte Carlo, so the fixed-point iteration is solving a random equation unless the Monte Carlo error is controlled. If the optimization returns a local maximizer λ_loc with p(γ, λ_loc) < sup_{θ ∉ Θ₁} p(γ, θ), then the zero of Eq. (12) is larger than the true size-α level, and the resulting test is liberal at the actual worst-case null parameter. The paper should either specify a certified global optimization method, provide a deterministic or error-bounded procedure for Eq. (7), or include a numerical verification for the m = 4 case study and the simulation scenarios.
- [Appendix E, condition 0 < p'(γ) < 2] The convergence and uniqueness proof for the inner fixed-point iteration relies on the assumption that 0 < p'(γ) < 2 on the solution space A, which is stated as 'usually satisfied' without verification. This condition is not checked for the m = 4 case study or for any of the simulation settings in Table 1. The existence of α* is also addressed only through a sufficient condition derived under independence, Eq. (13), while the correlated and heteroscedastic settings are justified heuristically. Without a verifiable condition or a fallback numerical procedure, the algorithm could fail to converge or converge to a point that is not the unique solution of Eq. (12), which would break the claimed size control.
- [§4.1, 'uniformly more powerful' claim] The statement that 'its rejection region cannot be smaller than that of the multivariate TOST, which makes the former uniformly more powerful' is proved for the population-level adjusted level α*(Σ), where α*(Σ) ≥ α follows by construction. For the feasible procedure based on pα*, the paper does not establish that pα* ≥ α almost surely, nor does it provide a finite-sample bound on the difference. Section 5 only reports empirical size below α in selected scenarios and says that this conservative behavior is conjectured to extend to the multivariate framework. The uniform-power claim should be explicitly restricted to the population-level version, or a proof or rigorous bound for the feasible version should be supplied.
- [Appendix A, structure of λ] The asymptotic size proof in Appendix A assumes that, when max_{i≠j} |ρ_{ij}| < 1, the vector λ contains m−1 components in (−c, c) and exactly one component equal to c. This structural fact about the argmax in Eq. (8) is asserted without proof for general covariance matrices. It underlies both the asymptotic size calculation and the κλ trajectories used in the simulations. The authors should either prove this characterization or state it as a lemma with the needed regularity conditions on Σ.
minor comments (5)
- [Table 1] The 'Results in' row of Table 1 refers to 'Figure 7' for Simulation 1, but the simulation results are displayed in Figure 6, while Figure 7 contains the case-study scatterplots; this cross-reference should be corrected.
- [Figures 6, A.1–A.3] The horizontal axis in the simulation plots is labeled 'Index NA' in the displayed version; it should be labeled 'κ' uniformly across panels.
- [§4.1, existence discussion] The discussion after Eq. (13) uses the independence-based condition to argue existence of α* in the correlated case study; the logical status of this inference should be clarified, since the condition is sufficient but not necessary in that setting.
- [§4.2, computation time] The statement that computing the multivariate α-TOST requires 'between 1 to 10 seconds' would be more useful with details on the machine, the Monte Carlo sample size, and the optimization tolerance used.
- [Data availability statement] The data and code are available in a GitHub repository, but a versioned release or a persistent archive would improve reproducibility; the authors should also report the versions of R and the cTOST package used for the results.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the size-α guarantee is a transparent construction (Eq. 12), and the multivariate extension is not a restatement of the authors' univariate α-TOST.
full rationale
The paper's central object, α*(Ω), is defined in Eq. (12) as the level γ at which the size function p(γ, λ(γ,Ω), Ω, ν, c) equals α; the statement that using α* gives a size-α test is therefore a direct consequence of the definition, and the paper says so explicitly ('By definition, when a solution to (12) exists...'). This is a constructive design rather than a fitted quantity presented as a prediction: the analytical content is in the existence/uniqueness conditions (Appendix C/E), the recursive dependence of λ on γ, and the Monte Carlo evaluation of p, none of which is an input-output disguise. The multivariate method extends the authors' univariate α-TOST (Boulaguiem et al.), but the multivariate size function (7), the argmax problem (8), and the nested fixed-point algorithm are new; no multivariate claim reduces to the univariate paper's equations by reparametrization. The op(ν^{-1}) result in Appendix D uses standard convergence rates; the citation to the authors' prior work for (A.11)-(A.12) supplies textbook stochastic-order facts and is not the load-bearing justification of the adjustment. No simulation or case-study value is fed back into the derivation, and the feasible level pα* is a plug-in estimate whose empirical size is evaluated externally. The main open issues—global optimization of the non-convex λ(γ,Ω) in Algorithm 1 and the 'usually satisfied' condition 0 < p'(γ) < 2—are numerical/regularity risks, not circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Canonical normal-Wishart model: θ̂ ~ N_m(θ, Σ), νΣ̂ ~ W_m(ν, Σ), with θ̂ and Σ̂ independent (Eq. (1)).
- domain assumption Symmetric equal equivalence margins: b = -a = c for all outcomes (Section 2).
- standard math Regularity conditions in Appendix D for the asymptotic result: uniform convergence of the derivatives of the power function p with respect to α and covariance parameters.
- domain assumption Contraction condition 0 < p'(γ) < 2 on the power function (Appendix E).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Multivariate Adjustments for Average Equivalence Testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RVVTQZQ
@misc{pith2026241116429,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Multivariate Adjustments for Average Equivalence Testing},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RVVTQZQ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16429}
}
abstract
Multivariate (average) equivalence testing is widely used to assess whether the means of two conditions of interest are `equivalent' for different outcomes simultaneously. The multivariate Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) procedure is typically used in this context by checking if, outcome by outcome, the marginal $100(1-2\alpha$)\% confidence intervals for the difference in means between the two conditions of interest lie within pre-defined lower and upper equivalence limits. This procedure, known to be conservative in the univariate case, leads to a rapid power loss when the number of outcomes increases, especially when one or more outcome variances are relatively large. In this work, we propose a finite-sample adjustment for this procedure, the multivariate $\alpha$-TOST, that consists in a correction of $\alpha$, the significance level, taking the (arbitrary) dependence between the outcomes of interest into account and making it uniformly more powerful than the conventional multivariate TOST. We present an iterative algorithm allowing to efficiently define $\alpha^{\star}$, the corrected significance level, a task that proves challenging in the multivariate setting due to the inter-relationship between $\alpha^{\star}$ and the sets of values belonging to the null hypothesis space and defining the test size. We study the operating characteristics of the multivariate $\alpha$-TOST both theoretically and via an extensive simulation study considering cases relevant for real-world analyses -- i.e.,~relatively small sample sizes, unknown and heterogeneous variances, and different correlation structures -- and show the superior finite-sample properties of the multivariate $\alpha$-TOST compared to its conventional counterpart. We finally re-visit a case study on ticlopidine hydrochloride and compare both methods when simultaneously assessing bioequivalence for multiple pharmacokinetic parameters.
Figures
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Global p-Values in Multi-Design Studies
The g-value aggregates p-values across multiple analysis strategies by rescaling the largest p-value with a null-distribution-derived correction, controlling type I error while preserving power.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Testing Statistical Hypothesis
Lehmann, E.L. Testing Statistical Hypothesis. Wiley, New York, 1959
work page 1959
-
[2]
A test of an experimental hypothesis of negligible difference between means
Bondy, W.H. A test of an experimental hypothesis of negligible difference between means. The American Statistician, 23(5):28–30, 1969
work page 1969
-
[3]
Use of confidence intervals in analysis of comparative bioavailability trials
Westlake, W.J. Use of confidence intervals in analysis of comparative bioavailability trials. Journal of Pharma- ceutical Sciences, 61(8):1340–1341, 1972
work page 1972
-
[4]
Bioavailability – a problem in equivalence
Metzler, C. Bioavailability – a problem in equivalence. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences , 30:309–317, 1974
work page 1974
-
[5]
Symmetrical confidence intervals for bioequivalence trials
Westlake, W.J. Symmetrical confidence intervals for bioequivalence trials. Biometrics, 32:741–744, 1976
work page 1976
-
[6]
Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses
Lakens, D. Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 8:355–362, 2017
work page 2017
-
[7]
“snap on” or not? a validation on the measurement tool in a virtual reality application
Sureshkumar, H., Xu, R., Erukulla, N., Wadhwa, A., and Zhao, L. “snap on” or not? a validation on the measurement tool in a virtual reality application. Journal of Digital Imaging , 35:692–703, 2022
work page 2022
-
[8]
O’Brien, M.W. and Kimmerly, D.S. Is “not different” enough to conclude similar cardiovascular responses across sexes? American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology , 322:H355–H358, 2022
work page 2022
Show all 53 references
-
[9]
Similarities and differences in the neurodevelopmental outcome of children with congenital heart disease and children born very preterm at school entry
Wehrle, F.M., Bartal, T., Adams, M., Bassler, D., Hagmann, C.F., Kretschmar, O., Natalucci, G., and Latal, B. Similarities and differences in the neurodevelopmental outcome of children with congenital heart disease and children born very preterm at school entry. The Journal of...
2022
-
[10]
Compara- tive efficacy of Tapentadol versus Tapentadol plus Duloxetine in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy
Sansone, P., Giaccari, L.G., Aurilio, C., Coppolino, F., Passavanti, M.B., Pota, V., and Pace, M.C. Compara- tive efficacy of Tapentadol versus Tapentadol plus Duloxetine in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Cancers, 14:4002, 2022
2022
-
[11]
No evidence for motor-recovery-related cortical connectivity changes after stroke using resting-state fmri
Branscheidt, M., Ejaz, N., Xu, J., Widmer, M., Harran, M.D., Cort´ es, J.C., Kitago, T., Celnik, P., Hernandez- Castillo, C., Diedrichsen, J., Luft, A., and Krakauer, J.W. No evidence for motor-recovery-related cortical connectivity changes after stroke using resting-state fmr...
2022
-
[12]
Risk-taking for others: An experiment on the role of moral discussion
Feri, F., Giannetti, C., and Guarnieri, P. Risk-taking for others: An experiment on the role of moral discussion. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance , 37:100735, 2023
2023
-
[13]
A 2 million-person, campaign-wide field experiment shows how digital advertising affects voter turnout
Aggarwal, M., Allen, J., Coppock, A., Frankowski, D., Messing, S., Zhang, K., Barnes, J., Beasley, A., Hantman, H., and Zheng, S. A 2 million-person, campaign-wide field experiment shows how digital advertising affects voter turnout. Nature Human Behaviour , pages 1–10, 2023
2023
-
[14]
Equivalence tests – a review
Meyners, M. Equivalence tests – a review. Food Quality and Preference, 26:231–245, 2012
2012
-
[15]
Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial
Lakens, D., Scheel, A.M., and Isager, P.M. Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 1:259–269, 2018. 20
2018
-
[16]
Myths and methodologies: The use of equivalence and non-inferiority tests for interventional studies in exercise physiology and sport science
Mazzolari, R., Porcelli, S., Bishop, D.J., and Lakens, D. Myths and methodologies: The use of equivalence and non-inferiority tests for interventional studies in exercise physiology and sport science. Experimental Physiology, 107:201–212, 2022
2022
-
[17]
Wang, K., Li, Y., Chen, B., Chen, H., Smith, D.E., Sun, D., Feng, M.R., and Amidon, G.L. In vitro predictive dissolution test should be developed and recommended as a bioequivalence standard for the immediate-release solid oral dosage forms of the highly variable mycophenolate...
2022
-
[18]
The influence of different evaluation techniques on the results of interlaboratory comparisons
Linsinger, T.P.J., Kandler, W., Krska, R., and Grasserbauer, M. The influence of different evaluation techniques on the results of interlaboratory comparisons. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 3:322–327, 1998
1998
-
[19]
and Small, D.S
Fogarty, C.B. and Small, D.S. Equivalence testing for functional data with an application to comparing pulmonary function devices. The Annals of Applied Statistics , pages 2002–2026, 2014
2002
-
[20]
Knight, R., Dritsaki, M., Mason, J., Perry, D.C., and Dutton, S.J. The forearm fracture recovery in children evaluation (force) trial: statistical and health economic analysis plan for an equivalence randomized controlled trial of treatment for torus fractures of the distal ra...
2020
-
[21]
Concordance rate of a four-quadrant plot for repeated measurements
Hiraishi, M., Tanioka, K., and Shimokawa, T. Concordance rate of a four-quadrant plot for repeated measurements. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21:1–16, 2021
2021
-
[22]
Improved procedures and computer programs for equivalence assessment of correlation coefficients
Shieh, G. Improved procedures and computer programs for equivalence assessment of correlation coefficients. PLoS ONE, 16(5):e0252323, 2021
2021
-
[23]
Assessing statistical similarity in dietary intakes of women of reproductive age in bangladesh.Maternal & Child Nutrition, 17(2):e13086, 2021
Wable Grandner, G., Dickin, K., Kanbur, R., Menon, P., Rasmussen, K.M., and Hoddinott, J. Assessing statistical similarity in dietary intakes of women of reproductive age in bangladesh.Maternal & Child Nutrition, 17(2):e13086, 2021
2021
-
[24]
Multivariate equivalence testing for food safety assessment
Leday, G.G., Engel, J., Vossen, J.H., de Vos, R.C., and van der Voet, H. Multivariate equivalence testing for food safety assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 170:113446, 2022
2022
-
[25]
Ultrastructural calibration model for proficiency testing
Aoki, R., Le˜ ao, D., Bustamante, J.P.M., and Vilca, F. Ultrastructural calibration model for proficiency testing. Journal of Applied Statistics , 50(5):1037–1059, 2023
2023
-
[26]
An item sorting heuristic to derive equivalent parallel test versions from multivariate items
G¨ obel, N., Cazzoli, D., Gutbrod, C., M¨ uri, R.M., and Eberhard-Moscicka, A.K. An item sorting heuristic to derive equivalent parallel test versions from multivariate items. PLoS ONE, 18(4):e0284768, 2023
2023
-
[27]
Bioequivalence of ticlopidine hydrochloride administered in single dose to healthy volunteers
Marzo, A., Dal Bo, L., Rusca, A., and Zini, P. Bioequivalence of ticlopidine hydrochloride administered in single dose to healthy volunteers. Pharmacological Research, 46(5):401–407, 2002
2002
-
[28]
Equivalence analyses of dissolution profiles with the mahalanobis distance
Hoffelder, T. Equivalence analyses of dissolution profiles with the mahalanobis distance. Biometrical Journal, 61 (5):1120–1137, 2019. 21
2019
-
[29]
New model–based bioequivalence statistical approaches for pharmacokinetic studies with sparse sampling
Loingeville, F., Bertrand, J., Nguyen, T.T., Sharan, S., Feng, K., Sun, W., Han, J., Grosser, S., Zhao, L., Fang, L., et al. New model–based bioequivalence statistical approaches for pharmacokinetic studies with sparse sampling. The AAPS Journal , 22:1–8, 2020
2020
-
[30]
Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence and Noninferiority
Wellek, S. Testing Statistical Hypotheses of Equivalence and Noninferiority . CRC Press, 2010
2010
-
[31]
A multivariate test for population bioequivalence
Chervoneva, I., Hyslop, T., and Hauck, W.W. A multivariate test for population bioequivalence. Statistics in Medicine, 26(6):1208–1223, 2007
2007
-
[32]
A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability
Schuirmann, D.J. A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics , 15(6):657–680, 1987
1987
-
[33]
and Jaki, T
Pallmann, P. and Jaki, T. Simultaneous confidence regions for multivariate bioequivalence. Statistics in Medicine, 36(29):4585–4603, 2017
2017
-
[34]
Optimal confidence sets, bioequivalence, and the limacon of pascal
Brown, L.D., Casella, G., and Gene Hwang, J. Optimal confidence sets, bioequivalence, and the limacon of pascal. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 90(431):880–889, 1995
1995
-
[35]
Optimal confidence sets for testing average bioequivalence
Tseng, Y.L. Optimal confidence sets for testing average bioequivalence. Test, 11(1):127–141, 2002
2002
-
[36]
and Hsu, J.C
Berger, R.L. and Hsu, J.C. Bioequivalence trials, intersection-union tests and equivalence confidence sets. Statis- tical Science, 11:283–319, 1996
1996
-
[37]
An unbiased test for the bioequivalence problem
Brown, L.D., Hwang, J.G., and Munk, A. An unbiased test for the bioequivalence problem. The Annals of Statistics, pages 2345–2367, 1997
1997
-
[38]
Finite sample corrections for average equivalence testing
Boulaguiem, Y., Quartier, J., Lapteva, M., Kalia, Y.N., Victoria-Feser, M.P., Guerrier, S., and Couturier, D.L. Finite sample corrections for average equivalence testing. Statistics in Medicine , 43(5):833–854, 2024
2024
-
[39]
Statistical tests for multivariate bioequivalence
Wang, W., Gene Hwang, J., and Dasgupta, A. Statistical tests for multivariate bioequivalence. Biometrika, 86 (2):395–402, 1999
1999
-
[40]
and Tothfalusi, L
Endrenyi, L. and Tothfalusi, L. Bioequivalence for highly variable drugs: regulatory agreements, disagreements, and harmonization. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics , 46:117–126, 2019
2019
-
[41]
Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling
Berger, R.L. Multiparameter hypothesis testing and acceptance sampling. Technometrics, 24(4):295–300, 1982
1982
-
[42]
Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence
Phillips, K. Power of the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 18:137–144, 1990
1990
-
[43]
A special case of a bivariate non-central t-distribution
Owen, D.B. A special case of a bivariate non-central t-distribution. Biometrika, 52:437–446, 1965
1965
-
[44]
Power for testing multiple instances of the two one-sided tests procedure
Phillips, K.F. Power for testing multiple instances of the two one-sided tests procedure. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 5(1), 2009
2009
-
[45]
Testing Statistical Hypothesis, 2nd ed
Lehmann, E.L. Testing Statistical Hypothesis, 2nd ed . Wiley, New York, 1986. 22
1986
-
[46]
and Zhou, X.H
Deng, Y. and Zhou, X.H. Methods to control the empirical type I error rate in average bioequivalence tests for highly variable drugs. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 29:1650–1667, 2020
2020
-
[47]
Guidance for industry, statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence
Food and Drugs Administration. Guidance for industry, statistical approaches to establishing bioequivalence. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, 2001
2001
-
[48]
Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence-cpmp
European Medicine Agency. Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence-cpmp. Technical report, EWP/QWP/1401/98 Rev. 1, 2010
2010
-
[49]
and Sch¨ utz, H
Labes, D. and Sch¨ utz, H. Inflation of type i error in the evaluation of scaled average bioequivalence, and a method for its control. Pharmaceutical Research, 33:2805–2814, 2016
2016
-
[50]
GGally: Extension to ’ggplot2’ , 2024
Schloerke, B., Cook, D., Larmarange, J., Briatte, F., Marbach, M., Thoen, E., Elberg, A., and Crowley, J. GGally: Extension to ’ggplot2’ , 2024. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GGally. R package version 2.2.1
2024
-
[51]
Asymptotic Statistics
van der Vaart, A.W. Asymptotic Statistics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000
2000
-
[52]
Principles of Mathematical Analysis
Rudin, W. Principles of Mathematical Analysis . McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition, 1976
1976
-
[53]
α. Notice that, given α, λ (as defined in Equation 8), Σ, ν and c, the size can be written as follows ppα, λ, Σ, ν,cq“ Pr ˜ mč j“1 ! |pθj|ă c´ tα,νpσj )¸ “ Pr ˜ mč j“1
Federer, H. Geometric Measure Theory. Springer, 2014. 23 Appendix A. Asymptotic Size of the Multivariate TOST Here we demonstrate that the multivariate TOST is size- α asymptotically, namely that lim νÑ8 ppα, λ, Σ, ν,cq“ α. Notice that, given α, λ (as defined in Equation 8), Σ...
2014
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.