The phrase "auc equivalent" is not correct in standard written English and lacks clarity.
It may be intended to refer to "AUC equivalent," which could be used in contexts related to statistics or data analysis, specifically when discussing the area under the curve (AUC) in relation to equivalency.
Example: "The model's performance was assessed by comparing its AUC equivalent to that of the baseline model."
Alternatives: "AUC counterpart" or "AUC equivalent value."
For moxifloxacin the 100 mg/kg dosing used in mice generates an AUC equivalent to the lowest AUC that can be achieved in patients and that is about 50% the highest AUC that can be achieved in patients [23], [24], [25].
Linear regression equations were determined for the association between AUC CP and peak CP, and cutoffs in AUC equivalent to peak CP ≥0.2 nmol/L were derived using this equation.
Therefore, the treatment dose was escalated to 130 mg m−2, which correlated with a projected free platinum AUC equivalent to that at the mouse MTD.
Using the positive controls described above as our set of true-positives we calculated the areas under the curves (AUCs, equivalent to concordance index c) for all three technologies; positive controls were assigned a value of 1, negative controls were 0. The AUCs for the asMIP technology ranged between 0.89 and 0.96; AUCs for qPCR were 1.0.
The primary analysis was restricted to a comparison of the relative efficacy of the two formulations within subjects and dosing strata (i.e., across AUC-equivalent total daily doses).
In this case, children, although receiving AUC-equivalent daily doses, would be receiving a lower morning (5 mg rather 10 mg) and afternoon dose (5 mg rather 10 mg) and a new evening dose (5 mg as opposed to no dose) during the study relative to their pre-study MPH daily treatment.
Although from a scientific point of view the aim of the COMACS study – to compare across-the-day PD profiles of the two formulations – was best served by a comparison of bio-equivalent (i.e. AUC-equivalent) total daily doses, other strategies for selecting comparator doses could have been legitimately followed.
AUC is equivalent to a rank correlation between predicted outcome probability and the observed outcome, requiring no categorization.
The AUC is equivalent to the probability that the classifier will rank a randomly chosen positive instance higher than a negative one [ 11].
In our context, the AUC is equivalent to the probability that the number of positive tests is larger for impaired than for healthy subjects.
The area under the curve (AUC) is equivalent to the probability that a successfully extubated infant will be considered to be more likely an extubation success than a failure, or an infant who failed extubation will be considered to be more likely an extubation failure than a success [ 26].
