S109. ADMIXTURE ANALYSIS TO MODEL CLOZAPINE PHARMACOKINETICS: COMPARISON OF TWO HOSPITAL-BASED SAMPLES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clozapine and norclozapine plasma levels are routinely used for monitoring clozapine compliance, side-effects, and treatment response. As well as treatment resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is also prescribed in suicidal patients with schizophrenia to reduce suicide ideation. However, it is unknown what the ideal clozapine levels are for targeting specific treatment response, i.e., positive, negative, cognitive symptoms, as well as suicidal ideation. In this study, we propose to use the admixture analysis to generate a model to define groups of clozapine plasma levels comparing two hospital-based samples. For the first sample, we have recruited 91 schizophrenia participants at CAMH treated with clozapine and monitored for clozapine plasma levels at baseline with two optional follow up visits at 2–4 months and 4–8 months. Participants were included in the study if participants had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder confirmed by medical charts, prescribed clozapine monotherapy for 3 months, and kept on a stable dose for at least 1 week. Participants were excluded if currently on a depot antipsychotic or receiving electroconvulsive therapy in the past 3 months. Scales utilized for the admixture analysis included the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) factor scores (i.e., reality distortion, disorganization, negative symptoms, and anxiety/depression) and a cognitive assessment in the form of the Brief Neurocognitive Assessment (BNA). All were performed at each visit. For the second sample, we included 83 subjects whose clozapine levels were extracted from electronic medical records (EMR). The clozapine plasma levels were analyzed using the admixture analysis to determine participants who were on high and low levels of clozapine. Gender, age and ethnicity were also included in the model, to assess the influence of different demographics across the two different samples. The admixture analysis through the MCLUST R package determined whether subjects fell into two (low versus high) or three (low versus intermediate versus high) normal distributions with regard to clozapine levels, and the appropriate model with the lowest Bayesian information criterion was selected. Based on the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion, for the first sample, the admixture analysis generated one model of ideal clozapine level distributions with two groups and optimal cut-off at 1250 ng/ml for the research sample. For the electronic-medical record sample, the admixture analysis (excluding outliers) identified two distributions with means of 1383±577 ng/ml and 2960±577 ng/ml, representing 81% and 19% of the observations, respectively. The ideal cut-off for determining low clozapine levels was <2475 ng/ml in the EMR group. When comparing the two distributions using the two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, we found a significant difference between the two models (D= 0.2169; P< 0.001). Our analysis suggests that plasma concentrations of clozapine can identify two separate groups of patients maintained on low or high levels. However, a unique cut-off between these two groups cannot be established. The admixture analysis is a powerful method to model population pharmacokinetic data for comparing data across different populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».