← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
分类依据题名和摘要中的方法词与领域语境，不使用期刊名称猜测研究方向。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
原文摘要
Recently, the concepts of population and individual bioequivalence have been proposed for assessing the bioequivalence of two drug formulations. Moment-based and probability-based measures of bioequivalence have led to criteria for deciding whether two formulations should be regarded as bioequivalent or not. The US Food and Drug Administration (1997) guidance recommended the use of bootstrap percentile intervals for this purpose. In this paper, we discuss theoretical properties such as consistency and accuracy of the recommended bootstrap intervals. We concentrate on individual bioequivalence and especially on the scaled versions of the moment-based as well as the probability-based measures as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration. As estimates for the former, we consider those obtained from an appropriate analysis of variance and restricted maximum likelihood estimators under mixed effect models, whereas an unbiased estimator of the latter can be derived from corresponding relative frequencies.