Should we also consider to validate the validation? [Dissolution / BCS / IVIVC]

posted by yjlee168 Homepage – Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2019-09-12 11:46 (1550 d 21:04 ago) – Posting: # 20591
Views: 5,761

Hi amer,

❝ I may be able to validate wagner-nelson in ivivc for R (assumes 1-comp model) with numerical deconvolution/convolution using RIVIVC package...

Right. It's really a great idea. Software validation is indeed a must and a good thing absolutely. However, I was wondering: should you validate RIVIVC package first? Supposed RIVIVC passes the validation, then should we use RIVIVC to validate Wagner-Nelson (implemented in ivivc for R)? To me, it sounds like using an apple to validate an orange. This report may provide a good start or some ideas. Finally, since the software validation (either the black box or the white box) largely replies on computer and human calculation processes, should we also consider how to validate software validation procedures too in the future?

❝ suggestion: the ivivc for R can be updated to do numerical deconvolution/convolution option because what if the disposition is not 1 comp, then wanger-nelson is limited.

It has been in my to-do list for a long time. I apologize about the delay. Anyway, this is a great idea too.

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

Complete thread:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
22,823 posts in 4,786 threads, 1,632 registered users;
42 visitors (0 registered, 42 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: 07:51 CET (Europe/Vienna)

In these matters the only certainty is
that nothing is certain.    Pliny the Elder

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