Hi All,

I dont think it is contradictory to use the sample-based densities for 
integration and then use the classical EBE for reporting individual values.  
When integrating you want to see the entire individual density so you can give 
correct weight to large areas of low probability. But when you are reporting 
individual values you dont really care about large areas of low probability, 
you only want the “most likely” parameters for an individual, this is classical 
EBEs or the (approximated) mode of the distribution.

The mean of this density is numerically useful but doesnt have a easy to 
understand interpretation (for me at least).

warm regards,

Douglas Eleveld
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of 
De Ridder, Filip [JRDBE] [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:06 PM
To: Bauer, Robert; [email protected]
Subject: [NMusers] RE: NM7.2 SAEM with LIKE

Hi Bob,

Apparently, Monolix offers two options side by side: mean or mode.
However, is there not another difference here:  root.phi gives the conditional 
mean of the sampling-based posterior density, whereas using FNLETA gives you 
the "classical" EBE, i.e. not sampling based?
It seems a bit contradictory that you would use the sampled-based densities to 
integrate out the ETA's in SAEM to obtain the pop pars, and then not use the 
sampled-based densities to get the ETA's?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Kind regards,

Filip


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Bauer, Robert [mailto:[email protected]]
Verzonden: wo 8/08/2012 0:30
Aan: De Ridder, Filip [JRDBE]; [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: NM7.2 SAEM with LIKE

Filip:
In your case it may be that conditional means are more appropriate than 
conditional modes, but I would not necessarily conclude that in general.
I do not know what Monolix reports regarding individual parameters.

Robert J. Bauer, Ph.D.
Vice President, Pharmacometrics, R&D
ICON Development Solutions
7740 Milestone Parkway
Suite 150
Hanover, MD 21076
Tel: (215) 616-6428
Mob: (925) 286-0769
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.iconplc.com<http://www.iconplc.com/>


________________________________
From: De Ridder, Filip [JRDBE] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:08 PM
To: Bauer, Robert; [email protected]
Subject: RE: NM7.2 SAEM with LIKE




Hi Bob,

Thanks for the clarification. Would you agree that the conditional means are 
more trustworthy, in case there is a relevant difference? In my specific 
dataset, there are 5 subjects for whom the conditional means yield a much 
better individual fit, than the "post-hoc" eta's.
I believe that in Monolix, the individual parameter estimates are the 
conditional means, no? In my example

Kind regards,

Filip
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Bauer, Robert [mailto:[email protected]]
Verzonden: di 7/08/2012 18:28
Aan: De Ridder, Filip [JRDBE]; [email protected]
Onderwerp: RE: NM7.2 SAEM with LIKE

Filip:
The $TABLE results are obtained from a "post-hoc" assessment at the best fit 
eta values (modal, EBE), regardless of the method used.  To evaluate $TABLE 
parameters at the conditional mean positions, you may select FNLETA=0.

Robert J. Bauer, Ph.D.
Vice President, Pharmacometrics, R&D
ICON Development Solutions
7740 Milestone Parkway
Suite 150
Hanover, MD 21076
Tel: (215) 616-6428
Mob: (925) 286-0769
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.iconplc.com<http://www.iconplc.com/>


________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of De Ridder, Filip [JRDBE]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [NMusers] NM7.2 SAEM with LIKE

Dear All,

With NM7.2/SAEM, the root.phi output file contains the conditional means (and 
variances) of the individual phi's (mu(i)+eta(i)) - which is great!   I found 
that the these values can be different from what you get from a $TABLE  in more 
classical way:

$PRED
MU_1=THETA(1)
K=MU_1+ETA(1)
...
$TABLE K ...

For a some subjects, these are very different, and the ones coming from the 
$TABLE are clearly less optimal, yielding a bad individual fit, as judged from 
IPRE calculated in $PRED.

I guess  one part of the solution is using CPRED and CPREDI - but unfortunately 
I cannot use these as I (have to)  use LIKELIHOOD in $EST (M3 method for 
BLQ-data).


Kind regards,

Filip De Ridder
Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium.



ICON plc made the following annotations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged 
information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. 
If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying,
distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the 
sender, so that
ICON plc can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message.
Thank You,
ICON plc
South County Business Park
Leopardstown
Dublin 18
Ireland
Registered number: 145835



ICON plc made the following annotations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged 
information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. 
If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying,
distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly 
prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the 
sender, so that
ICON plc can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message.
Thank You,
ICON plc
South County Business Park
Leopardstown
Dublin 18
Ireland
Registered number: 145835



________________________________
 De inhoud van dit bericht is vertrouwelijk en alleen bestemd voor de 
geadresseerde(n). Anderen dan de geadresseerde(n) mogen geen gebruik maken van 
dit bericht, het niet openbaar maken of op enige wijze verspreiden of 
vermenigvuldigen. Het UMCG kan niet aansprakelijk gesteld worden voor een 
incomplete aankomst of vertraging van dit verzonden bericht.

The contents of this message are confidential and only intended for the eyes of 
the addressee(s). Others than the addressee(s) are not allowed to use this 
message, to make it public or to distribute or multiply this message in any 
way. The UMCG cannot be held responsible for incomplete reception or delay of 
this transferred message.

Reply via email to