Open mattfidler opened 8 months ago
For dynamic transform of both sides, I suppose I could add the objective function correction using a new ofv that relies on ofv_fim
https://github.com/andrewhooker/PopED/blob/master/R%2Fofv_fim.R
But I don't think it is needed.... I'm not confident enough in the methodology to really know.
In general I cannot find the "y" value that would lend itself to the dTBS
Is fixing the add.err component equivalent to what is done?
Looking through the examples this is a clear no. I guess the fixed sigma trick that works in NONMEM does not work here.
I also noticed that the prediction functions return DV so there must be some sort of DV prediction. So dynamic transform of both sides won't work 100% by simply transforming the f value.
I also noticed there is an example (example 8) that sort of has this transformation built in for log-values. For now, in the case of dynamic transform of both sides, I handle log-normal for the example 8 case.
In this case:
f
function is untransformederr
function takes the untransformed and converts the valuesThis may be sufficient. However, it makes me wonder a bit about the standard errors of the estimate -- They seem way to small if I calculate them, so I think it is still an issue.
Hi Matt,
I'll take a look!
Andy
Thanks Andy
Hi @andrewhooker,
I have two questions:
sigma
is fixed to one and the additive error is defined in theff
model. When runningevaluate_design
the residual components are not being estimated in thefim
:Is fixing the
add.err
component equivalent to what is done?f
. In dynamic transformation of both sides in NONMEM there is an objective function adjustment. Is that needed?Thanks
The answers to these two questions will help me produce an interface between
nlmixr2
andPopED
.