Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 06:59 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

BQL = 0: bad rule [Software]

posted by Helmut Homepage - Vienna, Austria, 2018-07-13 23:28  - Posting: # 19058
Views: 991

Hi Babe_Ruth,

» […] WNL (currently using v 6.3) …

Your version is four releases behind the current one (v8.1). High time to update.

» I've noticed that in the 0-24hr partial area calculation, there are differences between imputing BQL with 0 and setting it as no value.

As expected.

» When I set BQL to "no value," then it uses the rules stated in documentation: WNL rules for partial areas are stated here. Most notably: "If ... end time falls after the last numeric observation and λz is not estimable, the partial area will not be calculated." Requiring λz suggests that WNL does not default to another calculation method in case log-linear isn't available.

Correct (note that this post referred to v7.0 of 2016).

» However, when I set BQL to 0, it uses a linear-trapezoidal rule: (Clast + 0)*(T16 - Tlast)

Also correct.

» Nowhere in the documentation does it say that this was the plan.

See the last bullet point of the linked post:You will not find this in the documentation of v6.3; too lazy to check its behavior.

» In summary, when I set BQL to 0, calculation method for partial area changes and the values slightly differ. Is this intended?

As designed and explained by ElMaestro above.

» Is this normal practice?

Bad practice to force BQLs after tmax to zero. I have seen many “rules” (e.g., first BQL to BQL/√2 or BQL/2, keep subsequent ones at BQL, whatsoever…). IMHO, that’s all crap. AFAIK, Martin Wolfsegger and Alexander Bauer are working on a NCA-method dealing with terminal BQLs. In the meantime I suggest to keep BQLs as they are.

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
18,882 posts in 4,026 threads, 1,271 registered users;
online 31 (0 registered, 31 guests [including 27 identified bots]).

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful,
is the basic building block of the universe.
I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen,
and that is the basic building block of the universe.    Frank Zappa

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed