Re: Linear VS LTBS
Neil
Large RSE, inability to converge, failure of the covariance step are often caused by the over-parametrization of the model. If you already have bootstrap, look at the scatter-plot matrix of parameters versus parameters (THATA1 vs THETA2, .., THETA1 vs OMEGA1, ...), these are very informative plots. If you have over-parametrization on the population level, it will be seen in these plots as strong correlations of the parameter estimates.
Also, look on plots of ETAs vs ETAs. If you see strong correlation (close to 1) there, it may indicate over-parametrization on the individual level (too many ETAs in the model).
For random effect with a very large RSE on the variance, I would try to remove it and see what happens with the model: often, this (high RSE) is the indication that the error effect is not needed.
Also, try combined error model (on log-transformed variables):
W1=SQRT(THETA(...)/IPRED**2+THETA(...))
Y = LOG(IPRED) + W1*EPS(1)
$SIGMA
1 FIXED
Why concentrations were on LOQ? Was it because BQLs were inserted as LOQ? Then this is not a good idea.
Thanks
Leonid
--------------------------------------
Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D.
President, QuantPharm LLC
web: www.quantpharm.com
e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com
tel: (301) 767 5566
Indranil Bhattacharya wrote:
> Hi Joachim, thanks for your suggestions/comments.
>
> When using LTBS I had used a different error model and the error block is shown below
>
> $ERROR
> IPRED = -5
> IF (F.GT.0) IPRED = LOG(F) ;log transforming predicition
> IRES=DV-IPRED
> W=1
> IWRES=IRES/W ;Uniform Weighting
> Y = IPRED + ERR(1)
>
> I also performed bootsrap on both LTBS and non-LTBS models and the non-LTBS CI were much more tighter and the precision was greater than non-LTBS. I think the problem plausibly is with the fact that when fitting the non-transformed data I have used the proportional + additive model while using LTBS the exponential model (which converts to additional model due to LTBS) was used. The extra additive component also may be more important in the non-LTBS model as for some subjects the concentrations were right on LOQ. I tried the dual error model for LTBS but does not provide a CV%. So I am currently running a bootstrap to get the CI when using the dual error model with LTBS. Neil
>
Quoted reply history
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Grevel, Joachim < [email protected] < mailto: [email protected] >> wrote:
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> 1. When data are log-transformed the $ERROR block has to change:
>
> additive error becomes true exponential error which cannot be
> achieved without log-transformation (Nick, correct me if I am wrong).
>
> 2. Error cannot "go away". You claim your structural model (THs)
>
> remained unchanged. Therefore the "amount" of error will remain the
> same as well. If you reduce BSV you may have to "pay" for it with
> increased residual variability.
>
> 3. Confidence intervals of ETAs based on standard errors produced
>
> during the covariance step are unreliable (many threads in NMusers).
> Do bootstrap to obtain more reliable C.I..
>
> These are my five cents worth of thought in the early morning, Good luck, Joachim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AstraZeneca UK Limited is a company incorporated in England and
> Wales with registered number: 03674842 and a registered office at 15
> Stanhope Gate, London W1K 1LN.
>
> *Confidentiality Notice: *This message is private and may contain
> confidential, proprietary and legally privileged information. If you
> have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it
> from your system and note that you must not copy, distribute or take
> any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of
> the contents of this message is not permitted and may be unlawful.
>
> *Disclaimer:* Email messages may be subject to delays, interception,
> non-delivery and unauthorised alterations. Therefore, information
> expressed in this message is not given or endorsed by AstraZeneca UK
> Limited unless otherwise notified by an authorised representative
> independent of this message. No contractual relationship is created
> by this message by any person unless specifically indicated by
> agreement in writing other than email.
>
> *Monitoring: *AstraZeneca UK Limited may monitor email traffic data
> and content for the purposes of the prevention and detection of
> crime, ensuring the security of our computer systems and checking
> compliance with our Code of Conduct and policies.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> *From:* [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>]*On Behalf Of *Indranil
> Bhattacharya
> *Sent:* 20 August 2009 17:07
> *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [NMusers] Linear VS LTBS
>
> Hi, while data fitting using NONMEM on a regular PK data set
> and its log transformed version I made the following observations
>
> - PK parameters (thetas) were generally similar between
>
> regular and when using LTBS.
> -ETA on CL was similar
> -ETA on Vc was different between the two runs.
> - Sigma was higher in LTBS (51%) than linear (33%)
>
> Now using LTBS, I would have expected to see the ETAs unchanged
>
> or actually decrease and accordingly I observed that the eta
> values decreased showing less BSV. However the %RSE for ETA on
> VC changed from 40% (linear) to 350% (LTBS) and further the
> lower 95% CI bound has a negative number for ETA on Vc (-0.087).
>
> What would be the explanation behind the above observations
>
> regarding increased %RSE using LTBS and a negative lower bound
> for ETA on Vc? Can a negative lower bound in ETA be considered
> as zero?
> Also why would the residual vriability increase when using LTBS?
>
> Please note that the PK is multiexponential (may be this is
>
> responsible).
>
> Thanks. Neil
>
> -- Indranil Bhattacharya
>
> --
> Indranil Bhattacharya