RE: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters

From: Mark Sale Date: November 12, 1999 technical Source: cognigencorp.com
From: "Sale, Mark" <ms93267@glaxowellcome.com> Subject: RE: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:57:16 -0500 Nick, Some time back we did some bootstrap simulation/analysis of NONMEMs ability to estimate SE of parameters. Nonmem didn't do disastrously with THETA (although there was some bias of about 20% as I recall, and a good bit of variability in the mis-estimation), but did remarkably poorly on SE of OMEGA and SIGMA, sometimes off by several orders of magnitude. I agree that the log likelihood approach is much more robust. Mark

Thread

View all 11 messages
Nov 12, 1999 Lars Erichsen Computing std for secondary parms
Nov 12, 1999 Lewis B. Sheiner Re: Computing std for secondary parms
Nov 12, 1999 Nick Holford Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 12, 1999 Lewis B. Sheiner Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 12, 1999 Nick Holford Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 12, 1999 Mark Sale RE: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 12, 1999 Lewis B. Sheiner Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 13, 1999 Mats Karlsson Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 15, 1999 Chuanpu Hu Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 15, 1999 Mark Sale RE: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
Nov 17, 1999 Chuanpu Hu Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters
← Previous
Next →