if Clast is zero in bear [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by yjlee168 Homepage – Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2015-12-11 18:16 (3052 d 04:59 ago) – Posting: # 15724
Views: 27,218

Dear Astea,

❝ 1). I used linear-up/log-down method (1)

❝ 2). When 'NA' is marked for the last point BEAR gets λz in the following form (below I attach all the results for the verification):


OK. Thanks.

❝ ...

❝ And when we leave "0" and choose manual selection (three points):

»<< NCA Outputs:- <Subj.# 1 > (Ref.)>>

--------------------------------------------------------

subj  time   conc  AUC(0-t) AUMC(0-t)

...

    1  3.00 1604.0  3309.275  6495.444

    1  4.00 1460.0  4841.275 11821.444

    1  8.00  797.0  9355.275 36253.444

    1 12.00  383.0 11715.275 58197.444

    1 24.00    0.0 14013.275 85773.444 <-


The zero-Clast should not be included even using manual selection method, though it will not cause any error in bear. This is because the extrapolated AUC (i.e. AUCt-inf) will become zero (since Clast is zero). I don't think this is a correct approach. Looks like that I have to take care of this error with bear.

❝ ...

❝ It seems to me very strange that λz in BEAR are slightly different: 0.16708 and 0.16727. And the question is why the first method (that is calculating with manually selected 3 points) fails.


Oh? any error message? Thanks again.

All the best,
-- Yung-jin Lee
bear v2.9.1:- created by Hsin-ya Lee & Yung-jin Lee
Kaohsiung, Taiwan https://www.pkpd168.com/bear
Download link (updated) -> here

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,988 posts in 4,825 threads, 1,656 registered users;
97 visitors (0 registered, 97 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 00:16 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The only way to comprehend what mathematicians mean by Infinity
is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.    Voltaire

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