1) The original email and responses can be found at 
http://www.cognigencorp.com/nonmem/nm/99feb172004.html

2) Your model does not make sense. In effect
    Y = LOG(F) + EXP(ETA(.))*EPS(1) 
    This is equivalent to 
    EXP(Y)=EXP(LOG(F))*EXP(EXP(ETA(.))*EPS(1))
    EXP(Y)=F*EXP(EXP(ETA(.))*EPS(1))
    Note the exp of exp.

    When working with logs,an additive error term makes more sense
    Y = LOG(F) + ETA(.)*EPS(1)
    LOG(Y)=EXP(LOG(F) + ETA(.)*EPS(1))=EXP(LOG(F))*EXP(ETA(.)*EPS(1))
    LOG(Y)=F*EXP(ETA(.)*EPS(1))
    This is now a proportional error model.


On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:26:54 -0400, "Samtani, Mahesh [PRDUS]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Dear NMusers,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> 
> I have run in to an old problem that Vladimir once described here on the
> users net. I am trying to implement inter-individual variability in
> residual variance and the corresponding OMEGA is not being iterated.
> Usually, in Dr. Karlsson's work this error structure is implemented on a
> proportional or proportional+additive EPS model. I am wondering if my
> problem is because I am trying to implement ETA on EPS using the
> transform both sides approach as follows?
> 
>  
> 
> $ERROR
> 
> CALLFL=0
> 
> IPRED = -5 
> 
> IF (F.GT.0) IPRED = LOG(F) 
> 
> IRES=DV-IPRED
> 
> W=1
> 
> IWRES=IRES/W
> 
> Y = IPRED + EXP(ETA(.))*EPS(1) 
> 
>  
> 
> Kindly advice...MNS
> 
>  
> 
> --------Cut here
> 
> From: "Piotrovskij, Vladimir [PRDBE]" - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Subject: [NMusers] Implementation of interindividual variability in
> residual variance
> 
> Date: 2/17/2004 9:37 AM
> 
>  
> 
> Dear NONMEM users,
> 
>  
> 
> I am trying to implement an interidividual variability in
> 
> the residual variance using an additional random effect:
> 
>  
> 
> $ERR
> 
>  Y  = F + EXP(ETA(.))*EPS(1)
> 
>  
> 
> It turned out the corresponding OMEGA was not iterated, and the final
> estimate
> 
> did not differ from the initial value. Below is an example control stream
> 
> and the output illustrating the problem (Note, the actual model I work
> with is more complicated).
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> --------Cut here
> 
>  
-- 
  Alison Boeckmann
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to