One option is to run all analyses in analytical ADVANs and then re-run
the final model in differential equations. If the results are close, it
could be used as a justification of the final model. If not,
differential equations solution should be preferred, I guess. In our
experience, analytical solution is usually pretty close to the
differential equations but this may depend on the data (time step of
records). One option to increase precision is to place extra EVID=2
records, so that the time step is smaller. Another option is to use
MTIME for that, similar to:
https://www.page-meeting.org/default.asp?abstract=1361
Leonid
On 12/19/2017 6:15 PM, Pavel Belo wrote:
Hello NONMEM Users,
When clearance changes over time, the classic analytical solution for
the 2-compartment linear model is not correct. Nevertheless, if the
change is only ~30%, one can say it is still acceptable. Time required
to run an analytical and numerical models is drastically different,
which can be important for decision making. Did someone had an
experience submitting using analytical solution when clearance changes
over time to an agency or a journal? Can it be acceptable?
Thanks,
Paul
