NONMEM Users Network Archive

Hosted by Cognigen

Re: distribution assumption of Eta in NONMEM

From: Nick Holford <n.holford>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:37:48 +0200

Sorry - I misread my results. The ETA shrinkage was -0.4% not -40%. I
had forgotten that NONMEM reports the shrinkage as a % not as a fraction.

Nick Holford wrote:
> Mats,
>
> I agree that trying to learn anything from the EBE distribution is a
> largely uninformative activity. If the shrinkage is too small then the
> EBEs are driven primarily by the data distribution (which is probably
> happening in the example I reported) while if they are too big they
> shrink to the population mean (with no information about the
> distribution at the limit). NONMEM7 claims that the ETA shrinkage for
> this experiment is about -40% (whatever that might mean).

--
Nick Holford, Professor Clinical Pharmacology
Dept Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology
University of Auckland,85 Park Rd,Private Bag 92019,Auckland,New Zealand
tel:+64(9)923-6730 fax:+64(9)373-7090 mobile:+64(21)46 23 53
email: n.holford
http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/sms/pharmacology/holford


Received on Mon May 31 2010 - 15:37:48 EDT

The NONMEM Users Network is maintained by ICON plc. Requests to subscribe to the network should be sent to: nmusers-request@iconplc.com.

Once subscribed, you may contribute to the discussion by emailing: nmusers@globomaxnm.com.