Log in
RegisterCτ for lin and lin-up/log-down [NCA / SHAM]
Dear Helmut!
I'm grateful for your quick reply!
For some reason (may be for it's simplicity) russians like linear method and include it into the protocols.
I recalculated via lin-up/log-down and now I'm puzzled with a new question: why do Cτ's differ by the way of calculation AUC? For linear I've got 3,38... (by the way, what are (1) and (2) on your presentation, slide 18?)
Is it correct to use t0 and t1, if dosing time happened between this two points? I mean for the time before dose (t0), the curve should be decreasing exponentially, while for the t1 it should be rising similar to linear?
I was lucky enough not to get it till now but shit happens, you know, and a danger foreseen is half avoided. Is it a bad idea to miss that BLQ for ss elimination part?
What is about regulatory's acceptance of any of the calculation modifications? I may use profound methods of numeric integration, but would it be accepted?
I'm grateful for your quick reply!
❝ By the linear trapezoidal method (dammit!)… With lin-up/log-down I get 1298.
For some reason (may be for it's simplicity) russians like linear method and include it into the protocols.
I recalculated via lin-up/log-down and now I'm puzzled with a new question: why do Cτ's differ by the way of calculation AUC? For linear I've got 3,38... (by the way, what are (1) and (2) on your presentation, slide 18?)
❝ Let’s call the first two datapoints t0|C0...
Is it correct to use t0 and t1, if dosing time happened between this two points? I mean for the time before dose (t0), the curve should be decreasing exponentially, while for the t1 it should be rising similar to linear?
❝ ❝ What is the best way to handle with BLQ in the end of the dosing period for steady-state?
❝ Lin-up/log-down as usual. Don’t you have any accumulation or is the method lousy? 
I was lucky enough not to get it till now but shit happens, you know, and a danger foreseen is half avoided. Is it a bad idea to miss that BLQ for ss elimination part?
What is about regulatory's acceptance of any of the calculation modifications? I may use profound methods of numeric integration, but would it be accepted?
—
"Being in minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad"
"Being in minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad"
Complete thread:
- AUC0-tau at steady state BNR 2016-03-31 22:46 [NCA / SHAM]
![[Mix]](https://static.bebac.at/img/mix.png "open in Mix view")
- AUC0-tau at steady state jag009 2016-03-31 23:05
- AUC0-tau at steady state BNR 2016-03-31 23:43
- RTFM Helmut 2016-04-01 00:59
- RTFM BNR 2016-04-01 02:05
- AUC0-τ estimation with time deviations Astea 2019-02-10 16:38
- AUC0-τ estimation with time deviations Helmut 2019-02-10 19:32
- Cτ for lin and lin-up/log-downAstea 2019-02-10 20:50
- Cτ by lin-/lin, lin-up/log-down, and λz Helmut 2019-02-11 01:45
- inter- vs extra- Astea 2019-02-11 19:46
- inter- vs extra- Helmut 2019-02-12 02:20
- No rule fits all mittyri 2019-02-14 12:55
- one size fits all vs goal posts Astea 2019-02-16 08:33
- one size fits all vs goal posts ElMaestro 2019-02-16 13:33
- Bias etc. Helmut 2019-02-16 14:26
- software: NCA not validated Helmut 2019-02-16 13:59
- no way out for NCA validation? mittyri 2019-02-20 21:22
- Default rules mittyri 2019-02-20 21:40
- one size fits all vs goal posts ElMaestro 2019-02-16 13:33
- one size fits all vs goal posts Astea 2019-02-16 08:33
- inter- vs extra- Astea 2019-02-11 19:46
- Cτ by lin-/lin, lin-up/log-down, and λz Helmut 2019-02-11 01:45
- Cτ for lin and lin-up/log-downAstea 2019-02-10 20:50
- AUC0-τ estimation with time deviations Helmut 2019-02-10 19:32
- RTFM Helmut 2016-04-01 00:59
- AUC0-tau at steady state BNR 2016-03-31 23:43
- AUC0-tau at steady state jag009 2016-03-31 23:05
Ing. Helmut Schütz