Fast Linear Prediction

Kumaresan etal. who are usually active in the field of linear prediction, proposed two approaches which were not too demanding in computational terms and applied to the frequency domain. The first consists in iteratively minimizing the difference between the experimental spectrum and a simulated one that may also require significant computer resource. The second consists in picking one line after the other, a method that should be quite fast. 

Once this eutoff has been found, we proeeed to find a more accurate estimation of the pitch using only the lower part of the signal. This is now possible as we are not attempting to pitch track noise. The amplitudes and phases are now foimd from Equation 14.5 as before, by minimising the error between the real and synthetic waveforms. This search can be performed in a number of ways Stylianou presents a fast technique for minimising Equation 14.5 directly [420], The noise component essentially has two parts h t) which describes the impulse response of the noise (which describes the spectrum of the noise envelope when transformed to the Frequency domain), and e t) which describes the sub-frame time evolution of the noise. For each fiame, h t) is found in a manner similar to linear prediction and e t) is estimated indirectly by calculating several values of h t) at shifted positions within the frame. 

Almost all flows in chemical reactors are turbulent and traditionally turbulence is seen as random fluctuations in velocity. A better view is to recognize the structure of turbulence. The large turbulent eddies are about the size of the width of the impeller blades in a stirred tank reactor and about 1/10 of the pipe diameter in pipe flows. These large turbulent eddies have a lifetime of some tens of milliseconds. Use of averaged turbulent properties is only valid for linear processes while all nonlinear phenomena are sensitive to the details in the process. Mixing coupled with fast chemical reactions, coalescence and breakup of bubbles and drops, and nucleation in crystallization is a phenomenon that is affected by the turbulent structure. Either a resolution of the turbulent fluctuations or some measure of the distribution of the turbulent properties is required in order to obtain accurate predictions. 

CPU time. In response to these slow and rigorous calculations, many fast heuristic approaches have been developed that are based on intuitive concepts such as docking [10], matching pharmacophores [19], or linear free energy relationships [20], A disadvantage of many simple heuristic approaches is their susceptibility to generalization error [17], where accuracy of the predictions is limited to the training data. 

The expected Cmax and AUC for each of the profiles are listed in Table 3. The profiles are predicted to show an acceptable range of Cmax values with around 20% difference between the fast and medium formulations and between the medium and slow formulations. The predicted differences in AUC are only related to the slightly different content of the three formulations, reflected in the Finf values (100% for the fast formulation and 102% for the other formulations). Normally, AUC is not expected to be rate-dependent unless there is some non-linear process involved in the disposition of the drug or drug release or absorption is very slow compared to gastrointestinal transit time. Given the predicted Cmax differences, these three formulations are appropriate choices for an IVIVC study as they show acceptable in vitro and predicted in vivo differences. 

The apparent dispersion coefficient in Equation 10.8 describes the zone spreading observed in linear chromatography. This phenomenon is mainly governed by axial dispersion in the mobile phase and by nonequilibrium effects (i.e., the consequence of a finite rate of mass transfer kinetics). The band spreading observed in preparative chromatography is far more extensive than it is in linear chromatography. It is predominantly caused by the consequences of the nonlinear thermodynamics, i.e., the concentration dependence of the velocity associated to each concentration. When the mass transfer kinetics is fast, the influence of the apparent axial dispersion is small or moderate and results in a mere correction to the band profile predicted by thermodynamics alone. 

A more detailed LSV study [58, 89] resulted in the conclusion that the kinetics, under all conditions, could not be described by the simple eCej, scheme. It was proposed that the reaction order in anthracene anion radical (AN- ) varies between 1 and 2 and the reaction order in phenol is greater than 1. A complex mechanism was also indicated from DCV measurements [89]. At a phenol concentration of 10 mM, values of dEpj d log v were in all cases close to that expected for a reaction second order in An-, i.e. 19.5mV decade-1 under the conditions of the experiments. The process is fast enough under these conditions for it to be expected to fall well within the KP zone. That this is the case was indicated by the fact that d p/dlog v was linear over a reasonably wide range of v (10— 1000 mV s-1). The highest value of the slope, observed at a phenol concentration of 100mM, was still significantly lower than 29.3 mV decade -1 predicted for a pseudo-first-order reaction. 

Anthracene (full printout) SMILES c(c(cccl)cc(c2ccc3)c3)(cl)c2 CHEM Anthracene MOL FOR C14 H10 MOL WT 178.24 Linear Model Prediction Biodegrades Fast Non-Linear Model Prediction Biodegrades Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe Weeks ... 

Linear Model Prediction Does Not Biodegrade Fast ... 

---