Different algos! [NCA / SHAM]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2013-05-31 00:38 (4402 d 04:34 ago) – Posting: # 10690
Views: 20,109

Hi Ken!

❝ ❝ 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.


R
round(exp(log(33.17)+abs((12-8)/(16-8))*log(7.86/33.17)), 2)
[1] 16.15
[image]
SAS
x=round(exp(log(33.17)+abs((12-8)/(16-8))*log(7.86/33.17)), 2);
16.15
[image]
Excel / OO Calc / Gnumeric
=ROUND(EXP(LN(33.17)+ABS((12-8)/(16-8))*LN(7.86/33.17)), 2)
16.15
[image]

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


Since I’m using different algorithms. Once more: Forget linear interpolation in the descending part of the profile.

[image]

Have you ever asked yourself why the arithmetic and geometric means of the same data are different?
Compare (7.86+33.17)*0.5
with     (7.86*33.17)^0.5
Are these values vaguely reminiscent of something you have seen before? :lookaround:

❝ ❝ 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.


round((16-8)*(7.86-33.17)/log(7.86/33.17), 1)
[1] 140.6
[image]
=ROUND((16-8)*(7.86-33.17)/LN(7.86/33.17), 1)
140.6
[image]

❝ How did you calculate ?


See above. And you?

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
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,674 registered users;
42 visitors (0 registered, 42 guests [including 11 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:13 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Philosophy, like medicine, has plenty of drugs, few good remedies,
and hardly any specific cures.    Sebastien-Roch Nicolas de Chamfort

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