Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters

From: Mats Karlsson Date: November 13, 1999 technical Source: cognigencorp.com
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 04:55:27 +0100 From: Mats Karlsson <Mats.Karlsson@biof.uu.se> Subject: Re: Standard error of 'secondary' parameters Mark, We have some experience where the SE's of NONMEM were quite OK (JPB 26:207-46). We also have results indicating that the log likelihood approach may be severely biased, and therefore I wouldn't agree with the statement "the log likelihood approach is much more robust" based on theoretical considerations alone. Best regards, Mats

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 →