not a good idea for incomplete replicate data [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by mittyri – Russia, 2015-07-11 17:05 (3499 d 15:32 ago) – Posting: # 15068
Views: 5,624

Hi Jerry!

I didn't catch all your suggestions despite my efforts, sorry...:-|

When I mentioned the incomplete data, I had in mind the quantity of periods. Let's look at your data one more time: there is no data for period 2 by subject #18 and no data for period 3 by subject #19
I see the only one way in Bear to solve this: to remove all data of subjects #18&19 from analysis.
BTW if you need NCA data only, you can input some "artificial" data for missing periods. Then you can get NCA data and remove the results for "artificial" periods. Of course the statistical analysis won't be performed in this way.

That's why I recommended not to use current Bear for this dataset (and all data sets with incomplete replicate data).
You can use another software (only payware, yes :-()


❝ In report, for 2 subject another results

❝ 1 1 1 Auc0T=7347

I checked the data twice: in R and WNL and can confirm your results. I cannot understand how did this man get 7347 :confused:

❝ For 2 subject after process, R writes

...

❝ Error in SeqLeg[[2]] : subscript out of bounds

:confused:
Did you try to perform NCA analysis in Bear for 1 subject? I think Bear was a little bit confused with sequence.

❝ did i correct change 0 for Cmax on NA?

I didn't understand where and what did you change. As you cited Bear manual "near the end of sampling time and is below LLOQ... input these data values as 'NA'..." Cmax cannot be changed to NA, isn't it?

Kind regards,
Mittyri

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,376 posts in 4,912 threads, 1,667 registered users;
175 visitors (0 registered, 175 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:38 CET (Europe/Vienna)

The great tragedy of Science – the slaying
of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.    Thomas Henry Huxley

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