Hello Team,
I was trying to replicate an interesting scenario where we are required to model correlation
between CL and Vc, but there is no correlation with Ka. Based on the known truth, this
was the intended covariance structure:
V CL Ka
V [ 0.1844 0.0369 0 ]
CL [ 0.0369 0.2089 0 ]
Ka [ 0 0 0.1844 ]
## How the other two tools write it
NONMEM — two $OMEGA records, one per block:
$OMEGA BLOCK(2)
0.1844 ; IIV_V
0.0368 ; IIV_CL_IIV_V
0.2089 ; IIV_CL
$OMEGA 0.1844 ; IIV_KA
Monolix :
V = {distribution=logNormal, typical=V_pop, sd=omega_V}
Cl = {distribution=logNormal, typical=Cl_pop, sd=omega_Cl}
ka = {distribution=logNormal, typical=ka_pop, sd=omega_ka}
correlation = {level=id, r(V, Cl)=corr_V_Cl}
We name only the pair that correlates. Anything unnamed is uncorrelated.
## What I have working in Pumas
Two @param entries and two @random draws:
@param begin
tvvc ∈ RealDomain(; lower = 0.0, init = 628.0)
tvcl ∈ RealDomain(; lower = 0.0, init = 19.2)
tvka ∈ RealDomain(; lower = 0.0, init = 0.75)
Ωvc_cl ∈ PSDDomain(; init = [0.1844 0.0369; 0.0369 0.2089])
Ωka ∈ PDiagDomain(; init = [0.1844])
σ ∈ RealDomain(; lower = 0.0, init = 0.2)
end
@random begin
ηvc_cl ~ MvNormal(Ωvc_cl)
ηka ~ MvNormal(Ωka)
end
@pre begin
Vc = tvvc * exp(ηvc_cl[1])
CL = tvcl * exp(ηvc_cl[2])
Ka = tvka * exp(ηka[1])
end
My question is whether it is the intended way of coding it.
Thanks in advance!