No interpolation [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Ken Peh – Malaysia, 2013-05-30 21:55 (4777 d 13:13 ago) – Posting: # 10688
Views: 24,195

Dear Helmut,

❝ Interpolated values for imputation:

linear: C12*=33.17+|(12-8)/(16-8)|(7.86-33.17)=20.52


ok.

linlog: C12*=exp(log(33.17)+|(12-8)/(16-8)|log(7.86/33.17))=16.15


How did you get the readings of 16.15? I tried to follow your equation but I could not get the answer.:confused:

❝ Calculation based on imputed values:

linear/lin imp.: pAUC8-16=0.5(12- 8)(33.17+20.52)+

                          0.5(16-12)(20.52+ 7.86)=164.1

linear/log imp.: pAUC8-16=0.5(12- 8)(33.17+20.52)+

                          0.5(16-12)(20.52+ 7.86)=146.7


linear/lin imp and linear/log imp have the same data set. Why the output is different ?:confused:

linlog/log imp.: pAUC8-16=(12- 8)(16.15-33.17)/log(16.15/33.17)+

                          (16-12)( 7.86-16.15)/log( 7.86/16.15)=140.6


❝ Direct calculation without imputation:

linear: pAUC8-16=0.5(16-8)(33.17+7.86)=164.1


ok.

linlog: pAUC8-16=(16-8)(7.86-33.17)/log(7.86/33.17)=140.6


Similarly, I could not get the answer of 140.61. How did you calculate ?:confused:

Please kindly elaborate.

Thank you.

Ken

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,655 posts in 4,993 threads, 1,570 registered users;
314 visitors (0 registered, 314 guests [including 23 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:08 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on
producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood
of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress”
in many areas.    Paul Feyerabend

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