NONMEM Users Network Archive

Hosted by Cognigen

Re: [NMusers] pcVPC or NPDE

From: Devin Pastoor <devin.pastoor_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:45:52 +0000

Dear Chenyan,

Appropriateness is largely a matter of what the ultimate purpose of the
model is, and neither metric will be 'better' in all cases. Extrapolating
into a new population may require different evaluation diagnostics than
using a model to optimize the dose the observed population.

Given you only have trough samples, using a posterior predictive check on
trough levels or equivalence criteria such as proposed in:

1.
Jadhav, P. R. & Gobburu, J. V. S. A new equivalence based metric for
predictive check to qualify mixed-effects models. *AAPS J* *7,* E523=
E531
(2005).

would likely work well.

Devin Pastoor
Clinical Research Scientist, PhD student
Center for Translational Medicine
University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:38 AM ZhaoChenyan <zhaochenyanvictory_at_hotmail.co=
m>
wrote:

> Dear all:
>
> I'm now having a set of TDM data, only troughs (C0 ) avai=
lable.
> I intend to evaluated the appropriateness of the constructed model.
> My question is whether to use pcVPC or NPDE as a diagnostic tool in such =
a
> case?
> Which one is better?
> Or to use them both, as suggested by Bergstrand et al.: "The best
> practice most likely lies in using a wide toolbox of diagnostics, rather
> than one single universal test to decide whether a model is fit for purpo=
se
> or not."
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Chenyan Zhao
>
> Email: *zhaochenyanvictory_at_**hotmail.com <http://hotmail.com>*
>
> Mobile: +86 13917430219
>
>
>

Received on Fri Sep 11 2015 - 10:45:52 EDT

The NONMEM Users Network is maintained by ICON plc. Requests to subscribe to the network should be sent to: nmusers-request_at_iconplc.com. Once subscribed, you may contribute to the discussion by emailing: nmusers@globomaxnm.com.