VIFs? [Design Issues]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-03-07 16:50 (4058 d 03:32 ago) – Posting: # 10170
Views: 8,817

Hi Simon!

Let’s see which VIFs we get for the same number of samples but with different schedules (IP’s example). Theoretical tmax at 4.837 h.
  1. 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72 h
  2. 0, 1, 2, 2.75, 3.75, 4.75, 6.5, 8.75, 11.75, 16, 21.5, 29, 39.25, 53.25, 72 h
[image]

In #1 we have three samples within ±25% of tmax (4, 5, 6 h) and in #2 only two (3.75, 4.75 h). The closest sampling timepoint to the theoretical tmax in #1 is 5 h (+3.37%) and in #2 4.75 h (-1.80%).
If I look at the VIFs for Cmax and tmax I would favor #1.
On the other hand AUC and K10 speak for #2.

BTW, your first plot is a nice example why the linear trapezoidal is such a lousy method.

P.S.: If you upload screenshoots crop / scale down to the maximum size (640px longest side) and save them as 8bit-PNGs in IrfanView. Will look much better than downscaled JPEGs.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,984 posts in 4,822 threads, 1,652 registered users;
52 visitors (0 registered, 52 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 21:22 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

You can’t fix by analysis
what you bungled by design.    Richard J. Light, Judith D. Singer, John B. Willett

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