AW: Re: Parameter Estimation in IF Conditioning Statement

4 messages 3 people Latest: Sep 20, 2013
Hi Leonid. Thanks for your quick response. WCMIN is continuous. In fact, it is actually identical to CONC (forgot to change it while simplifying). Any thoughts on this?Ben ----- Originalnachricht ----- Von: Leonid Gibiansky [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Thursday, September 19, 2013 09:32 PM An: Weber,Dr.,Benjamin (TransMed) BIP-DE-B Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [NMusers] Parameter Estimation in IF Conditioning Statement Hi Benjamin I think the problem was that when nonmem tested small variations of THETA(1) in the first version, nothing changed in the OF as these variation have not resulted in the change in the IF conditions (e.g., if your data contained WCMIN values 1 and 2 and nothing in between, and THETA(1) was 1.5, changes of THETA(1) to 1.6 or 1.4 were not resulting in the changes in OF, gradient was zero, and the gradient method was unable to move the model. When you put theta(1) in the centering, this resulted in changes of OF. This is not an unusual behavior. Therefore, it is better to use continuous functions rather than switches. For example, you can code it as INT = THETA(4)+(THETA(5)-THETA(4))/(1+(THETA(1)/WCMIN)**GAM) SLOPE = THETA(3)+INT*CONC+ETA(2) When GAM is infinity, this is equivalent to your model. You may use large GAM (or even estimated GAM) Leonid -------------------------------------- Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. President, QuantPharm LLC web: www.quantpharm.com e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com tel: (301) 767 5566
Quoted reply history
On 9/19/2013 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Dear NONMEM users, > > My goal was to add a drug effect to a disease progression model in a way > that the drug effect is different when a certain threshold concentration > is exceeded (similarly to modeling a ‘hockey-stick’ when performing > covariate analysis). First, I did it in the following way (partial > simplified code) > > $PRED > > THRESH = THETA(1) ;threshold concentration > > INT = THETA(2)+ ETA(1) > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > IPRED=INT+SLOPE*TIME > > and NONMEM did not manage to estimate THRESH=THETA(1) (i.e., the initial > estimate did not change during minimization and the gradient was zero > throughout). I tried this for several different initial estimates. > > I then centered the observed CONC on THRESH and run the following model > because colleagues mentioned that they have successfully run a > ‘hockey-stick’ estimating the threshold parameter (partial simplified code) > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*(CONC- THRESH)+ETA(2) > > This time, NONMEM provided very reasonable estimates for all model > parameters and the covariance step was successful. > > I wonder now if the centering of the variable (and hence something > particular to the data set) caused the difference in estimability of the > threshold parameter or whether NONMEN cannot estimate parameters that > only occur in the conditioning part of the IF statement (Note that after > centering THRESH also appears in another part of the code). > > Could somebody please provide some insight on this? I have searched in > the NONMEM user group but could not find anything. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, > Dr. Benjamin Weber > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG > Translational Medicine > Tel.: +49 (7351) 54-143520 > Fax: +49 (7351) 83-143520 > mailto:[email protected] > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; > Registergericht Mainz: HR A 22206; Komplementär Boehringer Ingelheim > Deutschland GmbH; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Engelbert Günster > (Vorsitzender), Ursula Fuggis-Hahn, Ralf Gorniak, Michael Klein, Dr. > Martin Wanning; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Joachim Hasenmaier; > Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR B 23260 > > Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Sie kann besonderem > rechtlichem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat > sind, senden Sie bitte diese E-Mail an den Absender zurück, löschen die > eingegangene E-Mail und geben den Inhalt der E-Mail nicht weiter. > Jegliche unbefugte Bearbeitung, Nutzung, Vervielfältigung oder > Verbreitung ist verboten. / This e-mail is confidential and may also be > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please reply > to sender, delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any > person. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or > distribution is strictly prohibited. >
Benjamin. Even as WCMIN is continuous by nature, it is not continuous in the dataset (at observation points). You may look at your WCMIN values in the data file (I assume this values are in the data file?) and see where the initial conditions for THETA(1) placed in that range. Step for gradient computations can be quite small, so it will not see continuous nature of the variable, and will treat it as discrete. One the same model but separate topic, I am not sure that you can code the model as you coded it if you indeed assume that WCMIN=CONC. It is better to write as (set aside problems with the gradient): IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)*WCMIN+THETA(5)*(CONC-WCMIN)+ETA(2) Otherwise, you SLOP function will be discontinuous at WCMIN as a function of CONC. Note also that your two models are not exactly equivalent. If you use IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) your values at WCMIN=THRESH are equal to SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*THRESH+ETA(2) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*THRESH+ETA(2) immediately before and after WCMIN=THRESH (different) while for the second model they are equal to SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) and equal to each other Leonid -------------------------------------- Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. President, QuantPharm LLC web: www.quantpharm.com e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com tel: (301) 767 5566
Quoted reply history
On 9/19/2013 4:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Leonid. Thanks for your quick response. WCMIN is continuous. In fact, it is > actually identical to CONC (forgot to change it while simplifying). Any > thoughts on this?Ben > > ----- Originalnachricht ----- > Von: Leonid Gibiansky [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Thursday, September 19, 2013 09:32 PM > An: Weber,Dr.,Benjamin (TransMed) BIP-DE-B > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [NMusers] Parameter Estimation in IF Conditioning Statement > > Hi Benjamin > I think the problem was that when nonmem tested small variations of > THETA(1) in the first version, nothing changed in the OF as these > variation have not resulted in the change in the IF conditions (e.g., if > your data contained WCMIN values 1 and 2 and nothing in between, and > THETA(1) was 1.5, changes of THETA(1) to 1.6 or 1.4 were not resulting > in the changes in OF, gradient was zero, and the gradient method was > unable to move the model. When you put theta(1) in the centering, this > resulted in changes of OF. This is not an unusual behavior. Therefore, > it is better to use continuous functions rather than switches. For > example, you can code it as > > INT = THETA(4)+(THETA(5)-THETA(4))/(1+(THETA(1)/WCMIN)**GAM) > > SLOPE = THETA(3)+INT*CONC+ETA(2) > > When GAM is infinity, this is equivalent to your model. You may use > large GAM (or even estimated GAM) > > Leonid > > -------------------------------------- > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > President, QuantPharm LLC > web: www.quantpharm.com > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > On 9/19/2013 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Dear NONMEM users, > > > > My goal was to add a drug effect to a disease progression model in a way > > that the drug effect is different when a certain threshold concentration > > is exceeded (similarly to modeling a ‘hockey-stick’ when performing > > covariate analysis). First, I did it in the following way (partial > > simplified code) > > > > $PRED > > > > THRESH = THETA(1) ;threshold concentration > > > > INT = THETA(2)+ ETA(1) > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > IPRED=INT+SLOPE*TIME > > > > and NONMEM did not manage to estimate THRESH=THETA(1) (i.e., the initial > > estimate did not change during minimization and the gradient was zero > > throughout). I tried this for several different initial estimates. > > > > I then centered the observed CONC on THRESH and run the following model > > because colleagues mentioned that they have successfully run a > > ‘hockey-stick’ estimating the threshold parameter (partial simplified code) > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*(CONC- THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > This time, NONMEM provided very reasonable estimates for all model > > parameters and the covariance step was successful. > > > > I wonder now if the centering of the variable (and hence something > > particular to the data set) caused the difference in estimability of the > > threshold parameter or whether NONMEN cannot estimate parameters that > > only occur in the conditioning part of the IF statement (Note that after > > centering THRESH also appears in another part of the code). > > > > Could somebody please provide some insight on this? I have searched in > > the NONMEM user group but could not find anything. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, > > Dr. Benjamin Weber > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG > > Translational Medicine > > Tel.: +49 (7351) 54-143520 > > Fax: +49 (7351) 83-143520 > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; > > Registergericht Mainz: HR A 22206; Komplementär Boehringer Ingelheim > > Deutschland GmbH; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Engelbert Günster > > (Vorsitzender), Ursula Fuggis-Hahn, Ralf Gorniak, Michael Klein, Dr. > > Martin Wanning; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Joachim Hasenmaier; > > Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR B 23260 > > > > Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Sie kann besonderem > > rechtlichem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat > > sind, senden Sie bitte diese E-Mail an den Absender zurück, löschen die > > eingegangene E-Mail und geben den Inhalt der E-Mail nicht weiter. > > Jegliche unbefugte Bearbeitung, Nutzung, Vervielfältigung oder > > Verbreitung ist verboten. / This e-mail is confidential and may also be > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please reply > > to sender, delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any > > person. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or > > distribution is strictly prohibited.
Sorry, there was a typos in the code, here is the version with continuous SLOPE function IF(CONC.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) IF(CONC.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*THRESH+THETA(5)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) Then, if you rename NEWTHETA3 = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*THRESH you will have IF(CONC.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = NEWTHETA3+THETA(4)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) IF(CONC.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = NEWTHETA3+THETA(5)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) exactly as your second version (up to the parametrization). Leonid -------------------------------------- Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. President, QuantPharm LLC web: www.quantpharm.com e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com tel: (301) 767 5566
Quoted reply history
On 9/19/2013 6:42 PM, Leonid Gibiansky wrote: > Benjamin. > Even as WCMIN is continuous by nature, it is not continuous in the > dataset (at observation points). You may look at your WCMIN values in > the data file (I assume this values are in the data file?) and see where > the initial conditions for THETA(1) placed in that range. Step for > gradient computations can be quite small, so it will not see continuous > nature of the variable, and will treat it as discrete. > > One the same model but separate topic, I am not sure that you can code > the model as you coded it if you indeed assume that WCMIN=CONC. > It is better to write as (set aside problems with the gradient): > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)*WCMIN+THETA(5)*(CONC-WCMIN)+ETA(2) > > Otherwise, you SLOP function will be discontinuous at WCMIN as a > function of CONC. > > Note also that your two models are not exactly equivalent. If you use > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > your values at WCMIN=THRESH are equal to > SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*THRESH+ETA(2) > SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*THRESH+ETA(2) > immediately before and after WCMIN=THRESH (different) > > while for the second model they are equal to > > SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) > SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) > > and equal to each other > > Leonid > > -------------------------------------- > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > President, QuantPharm LLC > web: www.quantpharm.com > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > On 9/19/2013 4:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi Leonid. Thanks for your quick response. WCMIN is continuous. In > > fact, it is actually identical to CONC (forgot to change it while > > simplifying). Any thoughts on this?Ben > > > > ----- Originalnachricht ----- > > Von: Leonid Gibiansky [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Thursday, September 19, 2013 09:32 PM > > An: Weber,Dr.,Benjamin (TransMed) BIP-DE-B > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: [NMusers] Parameter Estimation in IF Conditioning Statement > > > > Hi Benjamin > > I think the problem was that when nonmem tested small variations of > > THETA(1) in the first version, nothing changed in the OF as these > > variation have not resulted in the change in the IF conditions (e.g., if > > your data contained WCMIN values 1 and 2 and nothing in between, and > > THETA(1) was 1.5, changes of THETA(1) to 1.6 or 1.4 were not resulting > > in the changes in OF, gradient was zero, and the gradient method was > > unable to move the model. When you put theta(1) in the centering, this > > resulted in changes of OF. This is not an unusual behavior. Therefore, > > it is better to use continuous functions rather than switches. For > > example, you can code it as > > > > INT = THETA(4)+(THETA(5)-THETA(4))/(1+(THETA(1)/WCMIN)**GAM) > > > > SLOPE = THETA(3)+INT*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > When GAM is infinity, this is equivalent to your model. You may use > > large GAM (or even estimated GAM) > > > > Leonid > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > > President, QuantPharm LLC > > web: www.quantpharm.com > > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > > > On 9/19/2013 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Dear NONMEM users, > > > > > > My goal was to add a drug effect to a disease progression model in a way > > > that the drug effect is different when a certain threshold concentration > > > is exceeded (similarly to modeling a ‘hockey-stick’ when performing > > > covariate analysis). First, I did it in the following way (partial > > > simplified code) > > > > > > $PRED > > > > > > THRESH = THETA(1) ;threshold concentration > > > > > > INT = THETA(2)+ ETA(1) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > > > IPRED=INT+SLOPE*TIME > > > > > > and NONMEM did not manage to estimate THRESH=THETA(1) (i.e., the initial > > > estimate did not change during minimization and the gradient was zero > > > throughout). I tried this for several different initial estimates. > > > > > > I then centered the observed CONC on THRESH and run the following model > > > because colleagues mentioned that they have successfully run a > > > ‘hockey-stick’ estimating the threshold parameter (partial > > > simplified code) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*(CONC- THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > > > This time, NONMEM provided very reasonable estimates for all model > > > parameters and the covariance step was successful. > > > > > > I wonder now if the centering of the variable (and hence something > > > particular to the data set) caused the difference in estimability of the > > > threshold parameter or whether NONMEN cannot estimate parameters that > > > only occur in the conditioning part of the IF statement (Note that after > > > centering THRESH also appears in another part of the code). > > > > > > Could somebody please provide some insight on this? I have searched in > > > the NONMEM user group but could not find anything. > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, > > > Dr. Benjamin Weber > > > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG > > > Translational Medicine > > > Tel.: +49 (7351) 54-143520 > > > Fax: +49 (7351) 83-143520 > > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; > > > Registergericht Mainz: HR A 22206; Komplementär Boehringer Ingelheim > > > Deutschland GmbH; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Engelbert Günster > > > (Vorsitzender), Ursula Fuggis-Hahn, Ralf Gorniak, Michael Klein, Dr. > > > Martin Wanning; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Joachim Hasenmaier; > > > Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR B 23260 > > > > > > Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Sie kann besonderem > > > rechtlichem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat > > > sind, senden Sie bitte diese E-Mail an den Absender zurück, löschen die > > > eingegangene E-Mail und geben den Inhalt der E-Mail nicht weiter. > > > Jegliche unbefugte Bearbeitung, Nutzung, Vervielfältigung oder > > > Verbreitung ist verboten. / This e-mail is confidential and may also be > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please reply > > > to sender, delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any > > > person. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or > > > distribution is strictly prohibited.
Hi Benjamin, You should not use the closed form code for a linear model to disease progression if the slope is varying with time. See slide 9: http://holford.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/clinical-pharmacology-equals-disease-progress-plus-drug-action.pdf In your case the slope is dependent on WCMIN (which I understand is some kind of time varying covariate) and also on CONC (which also seems to be time varying. You need to use an ODE defined model in order to correctly predict the time course of the disease when the slope is changing with time. An example of NM-TRAN code can be found in slide 39: http://holford.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/docs/clinical-pharmacology-equals-disease-progress-plus-drug-action.pdf If the event records in your NONMEM data set are closely spaced then you may get an acceptable approximation because the ADVAN mechanism in NONMMEM is equivalent to a very simple piecewise integration. You can also consider using MTIME() in order to perform a more accurate piecewise integration. Best wishes, Nick
Quoted reply history
On 20/09/2013 12:42 a.m., Leonid Gibiansky wrote: > Benjamin. > > Even as WCMIN is continuous by nature, it is not continuous in the dataset (at observation points). You may look at your WCMIN values in the data file (I assume this values are in the data file?) and see where the initial conditions for THETA(1) placed in that range. Step for gradient computations can be quite small, so it will not see continuous nature of the variable, and will treat it as discrete. > > One the same model but separate topic, I am not sure that you can code the model as you coded it if you indeed assume that WCMIN=CONC. > > It is better to write as (set aside problems with the gradient): > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)*WCMIN+THETA(5)*(CONC-WCMIN)+ETA(2) > > Otherwise, you SLOP function will be discontinuous at WCMIN as a function of CONC. > > Note also that your two models are not exactly equivalent. If you use > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > your values at WCMIN=THRESH are equal to > SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*THRESH+ETA(2) > SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*THRESH+ETA(2) > immediately before and after WCMIN=THRESH (different) > > while for the second model they are equal to > > SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) > SLOPE = THETA(3)+ETA(2) > > and equal to each other > > Leonid > > -------------------------------------- > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > President, QuantPharm LLC > web: www.quantpharm.com > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > On 9/19/2013 4:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Hi Leonid. Thanks for your quick response. WCMIN is continuous. In fact, it is actually identical to CONC (forgot to change it while simplifying). Any thoughts on this?Ben > > > > ----- Originalnachricht ----- > > Von: Leonid Gibiansky [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Thursday, September 19, 2013 09:32 PM > > An: Weber,Dr.,Benjamin (TransMed) BIP-DE-B > > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: [NMusers] Parameter Estimation in IF Conditioning Statement > > > > Hi Benjamin > > I think the problem was that when nonmem tested small variations of > > THETA(1) in the first version, nothing changed in the OF as these > > variation have not resulted in the change in the IF conditions (e.g., if > > your data contained WCMIN values 1 and 2 and nothing in between, and > > THETA(1) was 1.5, changes of THETA(1) to 1.6 or 1.4 were not resulting > > in the changes in OF, gradient was zero, and the gradient method was > > unable to move the model. When you put theta(1) in the centering, this > > resulted in changes of OF. This is not an unusual behavior. Therefore, > > it is better to use continuous functions rather than switches. For > > example, you can code it as > > > > INT = THETA(4)+(THETA(5)-THETA(4))/(1+(THETA(1)/WCMIN)**GAM) > > > > SLOPE = THETA(3)+INT*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > When GAM is infinity, this is equivalent to your model. You may use > > large GAM (or even estimated GAM) > > > > Leonid > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > > President, QuantPharm LLC > > web: www.quantpharm.com > > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > > > On 9/19/2013 2:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Dear NONMEM users, > > > > > > My goal was to add a drug effect to a disease progression model in a way that the drug effect is different when a certain threshold concentration > > > > > > is exceeded (similarly to modeling a ‘hockey-stick’ when performing > > > covariate analysis). First, I did it in the following way (partial > > > simplified code) > > > > > > $PRED > > > > > > THRESH = THETA(1) ;threshold concentration > > > > > > INT = THETA(2)+ ETA(1) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*CONC+ETA(2) > > > > > > IPRED=INT+SLOPE*TIME > > > > > > and NONMEM did not manage to estimate THRESH=THETA(1) (i.e., the initial > > > > > > estimate did not change during minimization and the gradient was zero > > > throughout). I tried this for several different initial estimates. > > > > > > I then centered the observed CONC on THRESH and run the following model > > > because colleagues mentioned that they have successfully run a > > > > > > ‘hockey-stick’ estimating the threshold parameter (partial simplified code) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.LE.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(4)*(CONC-THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > > > IF(WCMIN.GT.THRESH) SLOPE = THETA(3)+THETA(5)*(CONC- THRESH)+ETA(2) > > > > > > This time, NONMEM provided very reasonable estimates for all model > > > parameters and the covariance step was successful. > > > > > > I wonder now if the centering of the variable (and hence something > > > > > > particular to the data set) caused the difference in estimability of the > > > > > > threshold parameter or whether NONMEN cannot estimate parameters that > > > > > > only occur in the conditioning part of the IF statement (Note that after > > > > > > centering THRESH also appears in another part of the code). > > > > > > Could somebody please provide some insight on this? I have searched in > > > the NONMEM user group but could not find anything. > > > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, > > > Dr. Benjamin Weber > > > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG > > > Translational Medicine > > > Tel.: +49 (7351) 54-143520 > > > Fax: +49 (7351) 83-143520 > > > mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; > > > Registergericht Mainz: HR A 22206; Komplementär Boehringer Ingelheim > > > Deutschland GmbH; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Engelbert Günster > > > (Vorsitzender), Ursula Fuggis-Hahn, Ralf Gorniak, Michael Klein, Dr. > > > > > > Martin Wanning; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Joachim Hasenmaier; > > > > > > Sitz: Ingelheim am Rhein; Registergericht Mainz: HR B 23260 > > > > > > Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich zu behandeln. Sie kann besonderem > > > rechtlichem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat > > > sind, senden Sie bitte diese E-Mail an den Absender zurück, löschen die > > > eingegangene E-Mail und geben den Inhalt der E-Mail nicht weiter. > > > Jegliche unbefugte Bearbeitung, Nutzung, Vervielfältigung oder > > > Verbreitung ist verboten. / This e-mail is confidential and may also be > > > legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please reply > > > to sender, delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any > > > person. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying or > > > distribution is strictly prohibited. -- Nick Holford, Professor Clinical Pharmacology Dept Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, Bldg 503 Room 302A University of Auckland,85 Park Rd,Private Bag 92019,Auckland,New Zealand office:+64(9)923-6730 mobile:NZ +64(21)46 23 53 FR +33(7)85 36 84 99 email: [email protected] http://holford.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/ Holford NHG. Disease progression and neuroscience. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. 2013;40:369-76 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10928-013-9316-2 Holford N, Heo Y-A, Anderson B. A pharmacokinetic standard for babies and adults. J Pharm Sci. 2013: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jps.23574/abstract Holford N. A time to event tutorial for pharmacometricians. CPT:PSP. 2013;2: http://www.nature.com/psp/journal/v2/n5/full/psp201318a.html Holford NHG. Clinical pharmacology = disease progression + drug action. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2013: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12170/abstract