Simulated median AUC0 21 days for 600-mg s.c. dose was in the range of simulation value for i.v. dosing at Cycle 1 (1,241 and 1,349 mg*day/l, respectively) and was ~40% higher with this s.c. dose vs. that with i.v. administration at Cycle 7 (2,408 and 1,796 mg*day/l, respectively).
The measured propagation losses in Table 4 are within the range of the simulated values, although the simulations show higher propagation loss as the distance from the window increases.
The range of the averaged values of the experiment was much larger than the ranges of averaged values of the simulations.
The dashed line plots the value of 8.5 M predicted by Section 3.3, while the discrete squares indicate the values found in simulation over a wide range of M. The analytical predictions match the simulation values.
By performing simulations, we have found ranges of values for the model parameters (such as diffusion and degradation rates) that yield oscillatory dynamics within PSM cells and that enable Notch signalling to synchronise the oscillations in two touching cells.
Its standard deviation was derived from a non informative distribution which allowed large standard deviation values and thus, the normal distribution could be flat enough to allow a large range of potential values for simulation.
Despite the wide range of ICER values, Monte Carlo simulation showed that ICER values for escitalopram were centered around €1100 compared with paroxetine and around €4400 compared with sertraline.
The figures are the mean, standard deviation and range of values for 2,000 simulations, with each value representing the mean across all ages in the first cycle of each simulation.
Figure 1 depicts the number of patients that remain alive at the end of 100 years of simulation across a range of HMSDCALE values from @1 through @12.
The range of averaged values of this simulation was much larger than the range of averaged values of the earlier simulations.
