Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Leslie cannot be wrong [PK / PD]

posted by mittyri  – Russia, 2016-09-26 02:23 (3130 d 04:25 ago) – Posting: # 16682
Views: 18,326

Dear Yung-jin,

❝ Should Eq. (8) be written as MRT = AUMC/AUC + MIT?

Well, to cut to the chase: no.

I sent the article on your mobilepk mailbox, so you can see all derivations

Complete thread:

• volume of distribution at steady state martin 2011-10-18 07:49 [PK / PD] 
  • Vss d_labes 2011-10-18 11:36
    • History Helmut 2011-10-18 16:02
      • History javier 2016-09-21 16:47
        • Amazon? Yes. yjlee168 2016-09-22 11:30
          • Gold Letters d_labes 2016-09-22 12:09
            • Gold Letters yjlee168 2016-09-24 20:26
              • Another quest mittyri 2016-09-25 15:04
                • TopFit: 16bit DOS-application Helmut 2016-09-25 23:41
                  • TopFit: less than 1.44 MB mittyri 2016-09-26 00:02
                    • TopFit: less than 1.44 MB Helmut 2016-09-26 00:17
                      • TopFit: less than 1.44 MB ElMaestro 2016-09-26 09:43
                  • TopFit: 16bit DOS-application yjlee168 2016-09-26 00:18
  • volume of distribution at steady state ElMaestro 2016-09-23 23:13
    • Vss: MIT is needed anyway... mittyri 2016-09-24 00:38
      • it seems possible for me... yjlee168 2016-09-24 20:19
        • Leslie disagrees mittyri 2016-09-24 21:33
          • OK! we cannot calculate Vdss with dataset from extravascular dosing alone yjlee168 2016-09-25 23:27
            • MRTINF includes Mean Input Time mittyri 2016-09-25 23:45
            • “Gravity Duration” Helmut 2016-09-25 23:47
      • Was Leslie wrong about Eq (8)? yjlee168 2016-09-26 00:13
        • Leslie cannot be wrongmittyri 2016-09-26 00:23