Covariate Model Selection

4 messages 2 people Latest: Mar 12, 1998

Covariate Model Selection

From: Peter Bonate Date: March 10, 1998 technical
From: "Bonate, Peter, HMR/US" <Peter.Bonate@hmrag.com> Subject: Covariate Model Selection Date: 10 Mar 1998 15:24:39 -0500 I am building a 1-compartment oral model at steady-state on data that had 1-2 observations per subject. One was specifically taken at trough. In inclusion of a covariate on V such that TVV = theta(1) +theta(2)*BSA V = TVV*exp(eta(1)) I had a drop in my objective function of 35 points. The CV on my parameter estimates do not change much compared to the base model without covariate and they are all precisely estimated (CV < 10%). However, I am modeling residual error using an additive and proportional error model Y = Y + eps(1) + Y*exp(eps(2)). With the covariate included in the model my estimates of eps(1) and eps(2) double in magnitude. There is no difference in residual plots or observed vs. predicted plots. Is the covariate model deemed a better model than the base model without covariates? Surprisingly I have encountered a wide diversity in opinion regarding 'yes' or 'no'. I would be interested in the comments from the users group. Thank you. Peter L. Bonate, Ph.D. Hoechst Marion Roussel Clinical Pharmacokinetics P.O. Box 9627 (F4-M3112) Kansas City, MO 64134 fax: 816-966-6999 phone: 816-966-3723

RE: Covariate Model Selection

From: Vladimir Piotrovskij Date: March 11, 1998 technical
From: "Piotrovskij, Vladimir" <vpiotrov@janbe.jnj.com> Subject: RE: Covariate Model Selection Date: 11 Mar 1998 03:29:00 -0500 Dear Peter, The correct syntax for proportional - additive error model is Y = F*EXP(EPS(1)) + EPS(2) or, equivalently, Y = F*(1 + EPS(1)) + EPS(2) Another point to comment: You write you have steady-state data and a substantial part of your measurements are at trough. I don't think you have enough information to characterize effects of covariates like BSA on the volume of distribution. Trough level at steady-state is mainly determined by CL. Then, CL and V are usually highly correlated. You'd better concentrate on looking for covariates affecting CL. After including all of them significantly improving the fit you can spend some time plotting ETA(V) vs. covariates. And if you are lucky... Hope this helps Vladimir ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vladimir Piotrovsky, Ph.D. Janssen Research Foundation Clinical Pharmacokinetics B-2340 Beerse Belgium Fax: +32-14-605834 Email: vpiotrov@janbe.jnj.com vpiotrov@janbelc1.ssw.jnj.com

Covariate Model Selection II

From: Peter Bonate Date: March 11, 1998 technical
From: "Bonate, Peter, HMR/US" <Peter.Bonate@hmrag.com> Subject: Covariate Model Selection II Date: 11 Mar 1998 10:17:13 -0500 I recently sent out a message to the group in an attempt to answer a question. I have gotten many responses, most of which were distracted from the main issue by my mistyping the error model statement. Here is the real issue: regardless of the error model or structural model, suppose inclusion of a covariate results in a significant drop in the objective function value, with no apparent change in residual plots, and tight precision of parameter estimates with and without the covariate, BUT residual error increases dramatically after inclusion of the covariate, does this imply that the covariate model is a better fit than the base model without covariate? For those of you that replied earlier, thank you very much. Peter L. Bonate, Ph.D. Hoechst Marion Roussel Clinical Pharmacokinetics P.O. Box 9627 (F4-M3112) Kansas City, MO 64134 fax: 816-966-6999 phone: 816-966-3723

RE: Covariate Model Selection II

From: Vladimir Piotrovskij Date: March 12, 1998 technical
From: "Piotrovskij, Vladimir" <vpiotrov@janbe.jnj.com> Subject: RE: Covariate Model Selection II Date: 12 Mar 1998 02:59:06 -0500 Dear Peter, There may be no general answer to your question. The situation you describe seems to me extraordinary. However, if you use FO method, it can happen. I personally do not rely on variability parameters estimated by the FO method. FOCE with interaction is much more reliable, but the run time in case of a complex model may become unacceptably long. Best regards, Vladimir ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vladimir Piotrovsky, Ph.D. Janssen Research Foundation Clinical Pharmacokinetics B-2340 Beerse Belgium Fax: +32-14-605834 Email: vpiotrov@janbe.jnj.com vpiotrov@janbelc1.ssw.jnj.com