RE: distribution assumption of Eta in NONMEM
I don't recall the context in which this was said, but, I remember
Stuart Beal saying something to the effect of "the assumption of
normality of distributions is not a strict one and that NONMEM works
quite well as long as the distributions are relatively symmetrical". I
will leave the interpretation to the rest of you.
Quoted reply history
________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Ethan Wu
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Ribbing, Jakob; nmusers
Subject: Re: [NMusers] distribution assumption of Eta in NONMEM
Dear Jakob and all,
In this thread, Mats clearly indicated Eta is assumed normal
distributed. But, others have said differently.
I wonder which statement is correct?
________________________________
From: "Ribbing, Jakob" <[email protected]>
To: nmusers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:10:44 AM
Subject: RE: [NMusers] distribution assumption of Eta in NONMEM
Dear all,
Dropping in a little late in the game all I can say is this:
Shame on all you great minds for reinventing your own wisdom :>)
Most of the content in the current thread has already been discussed in
an earlier thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01271.html
However, this old thread does contain a lot of postings and quite a few
which are VERY confusing, so you may want to skip ahead to Matt's
posting here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01302.html
(There are also many other postings which are very useful, but the one
above captures the essence with regards to the original question in the
current thread)
That said I think there are always new learnings in each thread, as
people tend to express themselves differently and the original question
branch into several new discussion points.
So I guess there are never two threads that are exactly alike, even when
the usual suspects participate in both.
Cheers
Jakob