RE: Block versus diagonal omega

From: Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap Date: August 29, 2010 technical Source: mail-archive.com
Mark, Glad that we end up with the same advice ;-). But even if the estimates of the diagonal elements increase a bit, it does not mean that the total spread in the predictions increases. To illustrate that I have written an R script that samples from a 2-by-2 matrix and simulates a bundle of emax-curves from it, attached at the end of this mail. This clearly shows that the off-diagonal element decreases the prediction space of the model. A 2-fold increase of the total magnitude of variance does not even compensate for that around the ec50 (although at the emax it does more or less). With a 10-fold multiplier the band around the ec50 gets into the same order of magnitude; the patterns that appear obviously are different from the uncorrelated case. I have never tried to summarize differences with an off-diagonal with a diagnostic, but $OMEGA can be diagnosed similar to the covariance matrix of estimation. The condition number seems an obvious choice although it only focuses on the extremes .The larger the condition number the more effect the off-diagonal elements have. The condition numbers of the _normalized_ matrix in the examples below are .0263 and 1, respectively. Best regards, Jeroen Modeling & Simulation Expert Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics & Pharmacometrics (P3) - DMPK MSD PO Box 20 - AP1112 5340 BH Oss The Netherlands [email protected] T: +31 (0)412 66 9320 F: +31 (0)412 66 2506 www.msd.com R code for simulations: library(MASS) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) a<-matrix(c(2,1.2,1.2,.8),nrow=2) b<-matrix(c(2,0,0,.8),nrow=2) c<-matrix(c(2,1.2,1.2,.8)*2,nrow=2) d<-matrix(c(2,1.2,1.2,.8)*10,nrow=2) a.sample<-mvrnorm(50,c(10,10),a) b.sample<-mvrnorm(50,c(10,10),b) c.sample<-mvrnorm(50,c(10,10),c) d.sample<-mvrnorm(50,c(10,10),d) conc<- 10^((-25:25)/20+1) emaxf<-function(p){ ec50<-p[1];emax<-p[2] emax*conc/(ec50+conc) } correlated<-apply(a.sample,1,emaxf) uncorrelated<-apply(b.sample,1,emaxf) inflated<-apply(c.sample,1,emaxf) more.inflated<-apply(d.sample,1,emaxf) matplot(conc,correlated,log='x',type='l',ylim=c(0,12)) matplot(conc,uncorrelated,log='x',type='l',ylim=c(0,12)) matplot(conc,inflated,log='x',type='l',ylim=c(0,12)) matplot(conc,more.inflated,log='x',type='l',ylim=c(0,12)) [remaining stuff deleted to increase change of acceptance by list server ;-)] This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited --- Please immediately and permanently delete.
Aug 25, 2010 Alexander Berg Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 25, 2010 Bioengineering Faculty Search Fwd: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 25, 2010 Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 25, 2010 William Bachman RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 25, 2010 Serge Guzy RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 26, 2010 Ye Hongbo RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 26, 2010 Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 26, 2010 Mark Sale RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 27, 2010 Doug J. Eleveld RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 27, 2010 Mark Sale RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 29, 2010 Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 30, 2010 Chuanpu Hu FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 30, 2010 Leonid Gibiansky Re: FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 30, 2010 Yaming Hang RE: FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 30, 2010 Mark Sale RE: FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 31, 2010 Leonid Gibiansky Re: FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Aug 31, 2010 Chuanpu Hu RE: FW: Block versus diagonal omega
Sep 02, 2010 Alexander Berg RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Sep 03, 2010 Jeroen Elassaiss-Schaap RE: Block versus diagonal omega
Sep 03, 2010 Paolo Denti Re: Block versus diagonal omega
Sep 03, 2010 Thomas Ludden RE: Block versus diagonal omega