ke versus t1/2 [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2016-07-20 18:05 (3256 d 18:46 ago) – Posting: # 16501
Views: 10,763

Dear Helmut,

❝ BTW, asking for a comparison of both k and t½ demonstrates a lack of understanding of statistics. They differ only by a factor of ln(2). Any comparison will give identical variance, CI, etc.


I think here you err.
t½ = ln(2)/k (some sort of 'inverse transformation').

Lets consider for simplicity the GMR's (I consider the metric names are the geometric means here):
t½T/t½R = (ln(2)/kT)/(ln(2)/kR) = kR/kT
That's not identical to the GMR for k IMHO :no:.

BTW: @Mahmoud.
k or ke will be better called lambdaZ - terminal rate constant.

❝ ❝ 1st order elimination rate constant

is only correct within an one-compartment model.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,676 registered users;
32 visitors (1 registered, 31 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:52 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature
more difficult to explain than
simple, statistically probable things.    Richard Dawkins

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5