RE: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
Hi Bob, Leonid, and Mark, Thanks for this interesting conversation! I think that it explains some issues with models I’d not gotten to the bottom of in the past. Bob, can these timeouts be raised to the user in the main output files? Or even better, could the timeout be automatically raised up to some user-configurable fold above the default on timeout, and if it happens again, the model is stopped with a message “Parallel processing timeout, increase TIMEOUT in the .pnm file or troubleshoot lost calculation nodes.” It seems like ignoring a subset of the data due to a timeout should not give results. Thanks, Bill From: owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com On Behalf Of Bauer, Robert Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:49 PM To: Mark Sale ; Leonid Gibiansky ; nmusers@globomaxnm.com Subject: RE: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question Mark: You would also likely see in the .phi file that the OBJ values may be 0 for those subjects not collected. The solution is as Leonid said, increase TIMEOUT in the pnm file. Robert J. Bauer, Ph.D. Senior Director Pharmacometrics R ICON Early Phase 820 W. Diamond Avenue Suite 100 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Office: (215) 616-6428 Mobile: (925) 286-0769 <mailto:robert.ba...@iconplc.com> robert.ba...@iconplc.com <http://www.iconplc.com/> www.iconplc.com From: owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com <mailto:owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com> [mailto:owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sale Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:37 AM To: Leonid Gibiansky; nmusers@globomaxnm.com <mailto:nmusers@globomaxnm.com> Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question thanks Leonid, I looked at that, and ossilation/sampling doesn't seem to be the issue, mean was 20804.0136597062, SD = 2.19872089635881. And the OBJ is very stable in the minimzation part, up until the last iteration/covariance iteration. It was run parallel, and I guess that your comment about not waiting for all the workers concerns me. There is a timeout event in the log file: ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 COLLECTING SUBJECTS9 TO 17 ON WORKER1 COLLECTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3 ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER TIMEOUT FROM WORKER1 RESUBMITTING JOB TO LOCAL STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON MANAGER: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 and no mention of collecting subjects 33 to 85 on worker 3, or subjects 9 to 17 on worker 1. so, that could be the problem. Bob - thoughts? Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. _ From: Leonid Gibiansky mailto:lgibian...@quantpharm.com> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:14:51 AM To: Mark Sale; nmusers@globomaxnm.com <mailto:nmusers@globomaxnm.com> Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question Mark, IMPMAP procedure produces run.cnv file. There you can find mean and SD of OF (over the last few iterations that were considered for convergence stop). I use these numbers for covariate assessment as iteration-to-iteration numbers oscillate and cannot be reliably compared. Concerning the last iteration OF drop, cannot tell for sure but I've seen OF drops in some cases when the main manager do not wait for the slaves to return OF of their portion of the data. prn file has parameters TIMEOUTI and TIMEOUT, and I would try to increase them and see whether this fixes the problem Thanks Leonid On 8/23/2018 1:54 PM, Mark Sale wrote: > I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for > interpretation help > > > in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the > covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 90
RE: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
Mark: You would also likely see in the .phi file that the OBJ values may be 0 for those subjects not collected. The solution is as Leonid said, increase TIMEOUT in the pnm file. Robert J. Bauer, Ph.D. Senior Director Pharmacometrics R ICON Early Phase 820 W. Diamond Avenue Suite 100 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Office: (215) 616-6428 Mobile: (925) 286-0769 robert.ba...@iconplc.com<mailto:robert.ba...@iconplc.com> www.iconplc.com<http://www.iconplc.com/> From: owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com [mailto:owner-nmus...@globomaxnm.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sale Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:37 AM To: Leonid Gibiansky; nmusers@globomaxnm.com Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question thanks Leonid, I looked at that, and ossilation/sampling doesn't seem to be the issue, mean was 20804.0136597062, SD = 2.19872089635881. And the OBJ is very stable in the minimzation part, up until the last iteration/covariance iteration. It was run parallel, and I guess that your comment about not waiting for all the workers concerns me. There is a timeout event in the log file: ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 COLLECTING SUBJECTS9 TO 17 ON WORKER1 COLLECTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3 ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER TIMEOUT FROM WORKER1 RESUBMITTING JOB TO LOCAL STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON MANAGER: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 and no mention of collecting subjects 33 to 85 on worker 3, or subjects 9 to 17 on worker 1. so, that could be the problem. Bob - thoughts? Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. From: Leonid Gibiansky mailto:lgibian...@quantpharm.com>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:14:51 AM To: Mark Sale; nmusers@globomaxnm.com<mailto:nmusers@globomaxnm.com> Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question Mark, IMPMAP procedure produces run.cnv file. There you can find mean and SD of OF (over the last few iterations that were considered for convergence stop). I use these numbers for covariate assessment as iteration-to-iteration numbers oscillate and cannot be reliably compared. Concerning the last iteration OF drop, cannot tell for sure but I've seen OF drops in some cases when the main manager do not wait for the slaves to return OF of their portion of the data. prn file has parameters TIMEOUTI and TIMEOUT, and I would try to increase them and see whether this fixes the problem Thanks Leonid On 8/23/2018 1:54 PM, Mark Sale wrote: > I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for > interpretation help > > > in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the > covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 9000 points (20798 to 11837), > monitoring from output file below > > > > iteration 70 OBJ= 20798.6782833867 eff.=5530. Smpl.= 1. > Fit.= 0.99524 > Convergence achieved > iteration 70 OBJ= 11837.9045704476 eff.=5475. Smpl.= > 1. Fit.= 0.99522 > > Parameters don't change much (edited .ext file below). > > 50 1.35E+01 9.96E-01 4.42E-02 9.41E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20799.68932 > 60 1.35E+01 9.67E-01 4.45E-02 9.43E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20792.90665 > 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20798.67828 > 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 11837.90457 > > > Plots don't look particularly different than other model (and look pretty > good), p values for ETAs are very reasonable, it converges, condition # is > good. Only two issues: > RSE for 2 OMEGAs is a little large (0.5) > an interoccasion variability term (on V) is very large (~4, exponential). > This
Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
yes, that is it, I've seen timeout results in OF drop, just increase the times that I mentioned, it should/could be OK after that. On 8/23/2018 2:36 PM, Mark Sale wrote: thanks Leonid, I looked at that, and ossilation/sampling doesn't seem to be the issue, mean was 20804.0136597062, SD = 2.19872089635881. And the OBJ is very stable in the minimzation part, up until the last iteration/covariance iteration. It was run parallel, and I guess that your comment about not waiting for all the workers concerns me. There is a timeout event in the log file: ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 COLLECTING SUBJECTS9 TO 17 ON WORKER1 COLLECTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3 ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER TIMEOUT FROM WORKER1 RESUBMITTING JOB TO LOCAL STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON MANAGER: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 and no mention of collecting subjects 33 to 85 on worker 3, or subjects 9 to 17 on worker 1. so, that could be the problem. Bob - thoughts? Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. From: Leonid Gibiansky Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:14:51 AM To: Mark Sale; nmusers@globomaxnm.com Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question Mark, IMPMAP procedure produces run.cnv file. There you can find mean and SD of OF (over the last few iterations that were considered for convergence stop). I use these numbers for covariate assessment as iteration-to-iteration numbers oscillate and cannot be reliably compared. Concerning the last iteration OF drop, cannot tell for sure but I've seen OF drops in some cases when the main manager do not wait for the slaves to return OF of their portion of the data. prn file has parameters TIMEOUTI and TIMEOUT, and I would try to increase them and see whether this fixes the problem Thanks Leonid On 8/23/2018 1:54 PM, Mark Sale wrote: I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for interpretation help in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 9000 points (20798 to 11837), monitoring from output file below iteration 70 OBJ= 20798.6782833867 eff.=5530. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99524 Convergence achieved iteration 70 OBJ= 11837.9045704476 eff.=5475. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99522 Parameters don't change much (edited .ext file below). 50 1.35E+01 9.96E-01 4.42E-02 9.41E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20799.68932 60 1.35E+01 9.67E-01 4.45E-02 9.43E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20792.90665 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20798.67828 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 11837.90457 Plots don't look particularly different than other model (and look pretty good), p values for ETAs are very reasonable, it converges, condition # is good. Only two issues: RSE for 2 OMEGAs is a little large (0.5) an interoccasion variability term (on V) is very large (~4, exponential). This is, I think, related to many subjects with data only at steady state. Further, when I advance this model, add another covariate, or another IOV on CL, to address the issue with SS data, cannot identify Volume uniquely (using the final parameter from this model as the initial in the next model), I cannot reproduce these results - the OBJ goes back to ~20,800, with essentially the same parameter estimates. So I end up rejected all additional covariates in this model (at least by LRT). other details, running on Windows, 64 bit, Intel compiler, NONMEM version 7.3. Can I believe this OBJ value? Should I base an additional hypotheses on the SEE, rather than the LRT? But, basically, why is this happening
Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
thanks Leonid, I looked at that, and ossilation/sampling doesn't seem to be the issue, mean was 20804.0136597062, SD = 2.19872089635881. And the OBJ is very stable in the minimzation part, up until the last iteration/covariance iteration. It was run parallel, and I guess that your comment about not waiting for all the workers concerns me. There is a timeout event in the log file: ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 COLLECTING SUBJECTS9 TO 17 ON WORKER1 COLLECTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3 ITERATION 70 STARTING SUBJECTS 1 TO8 ON MANAGER: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON WORKER1: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2: OK STARTING SUBJECTS 33 TO 85 ON WORKER3: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS1 TO8 ON MANAGER TIMEOUT FROM WORKER1 RESUBMITTING JOB TO LOCAL STARTING SUBJECTS 9 TO 17 ON MANAGER: OK COLLECTING SUBJECTS 18 TO 32 ON WORKER2 and no mention of collecting subjects 33 to 85 on worker 3, or subjects 9 to 17 on worker 1. so, that could be the problem. Bob - thoughts? Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. From: Leonid Gibiansky Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:14:51 AM To: Mark Sale; nmusers@globomaxnm.com Subject: Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question Mark, IMPMAP procedure produces run.cnv file. There you can find mean and SD of OF (over the last few iterations that were considered for convergence stop). I use these numbers for covariate assessment as iteration-to-iteration numbers oscillate and cannot be reliably compared. Concerning the last iteration OF drop, cannot tell for sure but I've seen OF drops in some cases when the main manager do not wait for the slaves to return OF of their portion of the data. prn file has parameters TIMEOUTI and TIMEOUT, and I would try to increase them and see whether this fixes the problem Thanks Leonid On 8/23/2018 1:54 PM, Mark Sale wrote: > I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for > interpretation help > > > in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the > covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 9000 points (20798 to 11837), > monitoring from output file below > > > > iteration 70 OBJ= 20798.6782833867 eff.=5530. Smpl.= 1. > Fit.= 0.99524 > Convergence achieved > iteration 70 OBJ= 11837.9045704476 eff.=5475. Smpl.= > 1. Fit.= 0.99522 > > Parameters don't change much (edited .ext file below). > > 50 1.35E+01 9.96E-01 4.42E-02 9.41E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20799.68932 > 60 1.35E+01 9.67E-01 4.45E-02 9.43E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20792.90665 > 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20798.67828 > 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 11837.90457 > > > Plots don't look particularly different than other model (and look pretty > good), p values for ETAs are very reasonable, it converges, condition # is > good. Only two issues: > RSE for 2 OMEGAs is a little large (0.5) > an interoccasion variability term (on V) is very large (~4, exponential). > This is, I think, related to many subjects with data only at steady state. > > Further, when I advance this model, add another covariate, or another IOV on > CL, to address the issue with SS data, cannot identify Volume uniquely (using > the final parameter from this model as the initial in the next model), I > cannot reproduce these results - the OBJ goes back to ~20,800, with > essentially the same parameter estimates. So I end up rejected all additional > covariates in this model (at least by LRT). > > > other details, running on Windows, 64 bit, Intel compiler, NONMEM version 7.3. > > > Can I believe this OBJ value? Should I base an additional hypotheses on the > SEE, rather than the LRT? > > But, basically, why is t
Re: [NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
Mark, IMPMAP procedure produces run.cnv file. There you can find mean and SD of OF (over the last few iterations that were considered for convergence stop). I use these numbers for covariate assessment as iteration-to-iteration numbers oscillate and cannot be reliably compared. Concerning the last iteration OF drop, cannot tell for sure but I've seen OF drops in some cases when the main manager do not wait for the slaves to return OF of their portion of the data. prn file has parameters TIMEOUTI and TIMEOUT, and I would try to increase them and see whether this fixes the problem Thanks Leonid On 8/23/2018 1:54 PM, Mark Sale wrote: I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for interpretation help in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 9000 points (20798 to 11837), monitoring from output file below iteration 70 OBJ= 20798.6782833867 eff.=5530. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99524 Convergence achieved iteration 70 OBJ= 11837.9045704476 eff.=5475. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99522 Parameters don't change much (edited .ext file below). 50 1.35E+01 9.96E-01 4.42E-02 9.41E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20799.68932 60 1.35E+01 9.67E-01 4.45E-02 9.43E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20792.90665 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20798.67828 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 11837.90457 Plots don't look particularly different than other model (and look pretty good), p values for ETAs are very reasonable, it converges, condition # is good. Only two issues: RSE for 2 OMEGAs is a little large (0.5) an interoccasion variability term (on V) is very large (~4, exponential). This is, I think, related to many subjects with data only at steady state. Further, when I advance this model, add another covariate, or another IOV on CL, to address the issue with SS data, cannot identify Volume uniquely (using the final parameter from this model as the initial in the next model), I cannot reproduce these results - the OBJ goes back to ~20,800, with essentially the same parameter estimates. So I end up rejected all additional covariates in this model (at least by LRT). other details, running on Windows, 64 bit, Intel compiler, NONMEM version 7.3. Can I believe this OBJ value? Should I base an additional hypotheses on the SEE, rather than the LRT? But, basically, why is this happening? thanks Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal.
[NMusers] IMPMAP behavior question
I have a model that seems to be behaving strangely, looking for interpretation help in model building, the OBJ is usually ~20900. Until this model, where, on the covariance step (IMPMAP method) the OBJ drops 9000 points (20798 to 11837), monitoring from output file below iteration 70 OBJ= 20798.6782833867 eff.=5530. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99524 Convergence achieved iteration 70 OBJ= 11837.9045704476 eff.=5475. Smpl.= 1. Fit.= 0.99522 Parameters don't change much (edited .ext file below). 50 1.35E+01 9.96E-01 4.42E-02 9.41E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20799.68932 60 1.35E+01 9.67E-01 4.45E-02 9.43E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20792.90665 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 20798.67828 70 1.35E+01 9.73E-01 4.44E-02 9.44E-01 3.05E+01 1.29E-01 11837.90457 Plots don't look particularly different than other model (and look pretty good), p values for ETAs are very reasonable, it converges, condition # is good. Only two issues: RSE for 2 OMEGAs is a little large (0.5) an interoccasion variability term (on V) is very large (~4, exponential). This is, I think, related to many subjects with data only at steady state. Further, when I advance this model, add another covariate, or another IOV on CL, to address the issue with SS data, cannot identify Volume uniquely (using the final parameter from this model as the initial in the next model), I cannot reproduce these results - the OBJ goes back to ~20,800, with essentially the same parameter estimates. So I end up rejected all additional covariates in this model (at least by LRT). other details, running on Windows, 64 bit, Intel compiler, NONMEM version 7.3. Can I believe this OBJ value? Should I base an additional hypotheses on the SEE, rather than the LRT? But, basically, why is this happening? thanks Mark Sale M.D. Senior Vice President, Pharmacometrics Nuventra Pharma Sciences, Inc. 2525 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Durham, NC 27713 Phone (919)-973-0383 ms...@nuventra.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal, in any form, is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal.
