d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2008-12-15 16:19 (5582 d 15:04 ago) Posting: # 2926 Views: 9,923 |
|
Dear Rusers, dear Bear inventors, dear all, after looking at the details of NCA analysis in Bear (see NCA_PK.txt) I wonder, if/why the time point zero is not included in the AUC(0-tlast) calculations. Any reasons for that, if really not included? Is this not an 'oral' application dataset? Further question: What about missing values at t=0.25 h (f.i. subject 2, 4 ...) for the built-in dataset. Missing or <LLOQ? — Regards, Detlew |
yjlee168 ★★★ Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2008-12-17 19:57 (5580 d 11:26 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 2935 Views: 8,512 |
|
dear SASophylic DLabes, Yes, the built-in dataset (for demo purpose) was the 'oral' dataset. The time zero was absolutely included. The first piece AUC is not exactly a trapezoid, but a triangle. At the time zero with oral data, the drug concentration is supposed to be 'zero', unless the washout period is not long enough. If there is a missing value due to any reason, bear will treat it as 'zero' concentration. Very sorry about this delayed response. ❝ Any reasons for that, if really not included? ❝ Is this not an 'oral' application dataset? ❝ ❝ Further question: What about missing values at t=0.25 h (f.i. subject 2, 4 ❝ ...) for the built-in dataset. Missing or <LLOQ? — 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 |
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2008-12-18 09:25 (5579 d 21:58 ago) @ yjlee168 Posting: # 2937 Views: 8,477 |
|
Dear Yung-jin, thanks for replying. ❝ [...] The time zero was absolutely included. The first piece AUC ❝ is not exactly a trapezoid, but a triangle. [...] So it should be! But sorry I cannot recover this in your output on the Bear homepage. Here a piece of your NCA_PK.txt << NCA Output:- Subject# 1 (Ref.)>> Seems to me: No triangle from time zero to time 0.25 h : Or miss I some piece? For that data I have calculated AUC(0-t)=14445.275. Yours is AUC(0-t)=14440.76. Triangle (some sort of degenerate trapezoid ) from 0-0.25h=0.25*36.1/2=4.5125. Sum both and you get mine. BTW: The half-life calculation I was able to verify exactly using SAS code for the ARS method . — Regards, Detlew |
yjlee168 ★★★ Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2008-12-18 09:44 (5579 d 21:39 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 2939 Views: 8,429 |
|
dear DLabes, Weird! I just run bear again and what I get is displayed as follows. [...] Reference which is identical to what you got (14445.275]. Could you please update all your R packages (from R console, plz) again? This is because there seems a big change from v2.7.2 to v2.8.0. My desktop PC system is Win/Vista sp1,R v2.8.0 and bear v2.0.1. If you update all packages of R from its console, it will also automatically update all packages that will be called by bear. Sorry about this. ❝ [...] ❝ For that data I have calculated AUC(0-t)=14445.275. ❝ [...] — 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 |
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2008-12-18 10:02 (5579 d 21:21 ago) @ yjlee168 Posting: # 2940 Views: 8,526 |
|
Dear Yung-jin, I have no R or Bear installed. Because I have all my working days to struggle with the beast SAS. I refer to your Bear homepage! I think it would be a good idea to update it. — Regards, Detlew |
yjlee168 ★★★ Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2008-12-18 10:47 (5579 d 20:36 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 2941 Views: 8,505 |
|
dear DLabes, Thank you so much. You're right about this. I didn't keep the website updated. But, I have already updated bear website. It's the output from previous version (v1.x.x?). — 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 |
d_labes ★★★ Berlin, Germany, 2008-12-18 12:46 (5579 d 18:37 ago) @ yjlee168 Posting: # 2944 Views: 8,429 |
|
Dear Bear inventors, I would suggest a change in your statistical summary output. Here a piece:
Statistical Summaries for Bioequivalence Study (N= 14 ) The ratio of meanTest/meanRef. in case of log-transformed values does not make sense. It is misleading as it may be interpreted as point estimator of the bioavailability ratio by some 'naive' users. This is especially true because the following part, the 90% confidence intervals, does nor give any point estimator. My suggestion therefore is: 1. Do not give the ratio in case of log-transformed values. Include the point estimator of bioavailability ratio as exp(LSMeanT-LSMeanR) in the part with the 90% CIs. or 2. Give the ratio in case of log-transformed values as exp(meanT-meanR) as an approximation to the biovailability ratio. Include the point estimator of bioavailability ratio as exp(LSMeanT-LSMeanR) in the part with the 90% CIs. Both estimates are identical only in case of balanced studies. But giving both may confuse the 'naive' users or even regulators. Dear Yung-jin, at all great job. — Regards, Detlew |
yjlee168 ★★★ Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2008-12-18 13:13 (5579 d 18:10 ago) @ d_labes Posting: # 2945 Views: 8,456 |
|
dear DLabes, Indeed. you're absolutely right. We will put your suggestions in the list for next release. Actually, we should do this back to a while ago when we discussed which 90%CI should be implemented in Bear. 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 |