Dear Dennis - Some approaches for you to consider:
1. Brute Force Model: I hope there is some prior information about the CL
for poor and extensive metabolizers. I am also assuming the difference between
PM and EM is meaningful. In that case, simply assume that this subject is a PM
and
Hi Mat,
Yes, I only have oral PK data and as you expected, the introduction of
variability on F didn't improve the fit.
As Nick suggested previously, I also tried different combinations of BSV and
BOV on ka and Tlag using one compartment and two compartment model. The
incorporation of BOV on k
Hi Pascal
According to the documentation PsN 3.4.8 and later supports $SIZES.
http://psn.sourceforge.net/pdfdocs/PsN_and_NONMEM7.pdf
We are running version 3.5.3 and that works fine.
Regards
Julia
*"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" Albert Einste
Colleagues
I am analyzing data in which there are two distinct populations as a result of
CYP2D6 deficiency. In one dataset, there are 18 subjects with rich data; one
of these subjects is markedly different. In that the incidence of 2D6
deficiency is reported to be < 10%, one would expect onl
Hi Nastya,
You were right : it is my psn installation that refuses to see something
else than $PROB as first line as I just checked by running it directly
from nmfe72
You cannot stop the progress!
Thanks again and Kind regards
Pascal
From: "Kassir Nastya"
To: , "Bauer, Robert
Pascal,
That error looks like a PSN error rather than NONMEM. I can confirm that for
NM7.2 the $SIZES record must be the first record of the control stream. You
might try bypassing PSN if possible and I bet you will not get that error.
Bill
Bill Knebel, PharmD, PhD
Hi Katya,
As I just replied to Nasty, when I put $SIZES as very first record I get
the following error:
>_read_problems: First non-comment line in modelfile run.mod is not a
$PROB record. NONMEM syntax violation.
It might be that this message comes from psn ... I have to check this ...
Thanks
Hi Pascal,
I have already used it with NONMEM 72 and it works, but not in psn.
$SIZES LIM6=1000
$PROBLEM XX
Best regards,
Nastya
From: pascal.gir...@merckgroup.com [mailto:pascal.gir...@merckgroup.com]
Sent: Thu 7/12/2012 11:09
To: Kassir Nastya; Bau
Hi Nastia,
I tried your trick which would have broken the first table law rule "The
first NM-TRAN control record must be a $PROBLEM record" and put $SIZES as
very first record and got following error:
>_read_problems: First non-comment line in modelfile run.mod is not a
$PROB record. NONMEM s
Hi Pascal,
$SIZES should be before $PROB. It should be the first uncommented
line in the file.
Regards,
Katya
Ekaterina Gibiansky, Ph.D.
CEO&CSO, QuantPharm LLC
Web: www.quantpharm.com
Email: egibian...@quantpharm.com
Tel: (301)-717-7
Dear Claire,
If you have data only from oral doses and covariances between disposition
parameters (CL; V), then you will not get any further improvement by
introducing variability in F1.
Best regards,
Mats
Mats Karlsson, PhD
Professor of Pharmacometrics
FIRST WORLD CONFERENCE ON
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your quick reply. Unfortunately, I could not make it work.
I have 17,000 records. So just after $PROB. I inserted your suggestion:
$SIZES LIM1 = 2
and I got the following error :
> Fatal Error: Record SIZES is not valid
So I tried also the default va
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your helpful comment. I will test BOV + BSV on my absorption
model parameters first.
Sorry for my typo. I meant neither of the models improved the fit.
Thanks again for your help.
Best,
Claire
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Nick Holford wrote:
> Claire,
>
> See below:
>
>
>
Claire,
See below:
On 11/07/2012 9:45 p.m., Xu, Claire wrote:
Hi Nick,
Thank you a lot for clarifying how to incorporate BOV in the model.
I tested BOV on F1 with the same option as well as variable BOVs on F1
from different occasions. But either of them improved the fitting.
I am not sure
14 matches
Mail list logo
