Hi, Ron & Nick:
Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions! I will look into those
references.
Regards,
Siwei
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Nick Holford
wrote:
> Siwei,
>
> I agree with Ron. Using the measurements you have is better than trying to
> use a work around such as likelih
Siwei,
I have to disagree with Nick and Ron’s suggestion to include, without further
question, the negative concentration values in your model. Yes, HPLC/UV and
HPLC/MS methods contain background noise, and if it is purely random you can
account for it in your model by including a suitable r
Position:
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in Pharmacometrics
Location:
Center for Translational Medicine, Department of Pharmacy Practice and
Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore
Job type:
Full Time (2 years)
Minimum Education:
Ph.D. or equivalent degree in pharm
Rupert,
Thanks for mentioning this issue. I quite agree there would be a problem
if the chemical analyst had not checked for bias over the entire range
of measured concs and adjusted the calibration procedure to remove bias.
The nice thing about creating an assay calibration curve is that the
Hi,
WFN supports NONMEM 7.3.0 and simplified parallel execution methods.
Monolix users may use WFN to perform non-parametric and parametric
bootstraps with Monolix 4.3.0. NeSI grid users may submit WFN runs to
the PAN cluster in Auckland.
I have uploaded an updated version of Wings for NONME
