Predicting neonatal pharmacokinetics from prior data using population pharmacokinetic modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection of the first dose for neonates in clinical trials is very challenging. The objective of this analysis was to assess if a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model developed with data from infants to adults is predictive of neonatal clearance and to evaluate what age range of prior PK data is needed for informative modeling to predict neonate exposure. Two sources of pharmacokinetic data from 8 drugs were used to develop population models: (1) data from all patients > 2 years of age, and (2) data from all nonneonatal patients aged > 28 days. The prediction error based on the models using data from subjects > 2 years of age showed bias toward overprediction, with median average fold error (AFE) for CL predicted/CLobserved greater than 1.5. The bias for predicting neonatal PK was improved when using all prior PK data including infants as opposed to an assessment without infant PK data, with the median AFE 0.91. As an increased number of pediatric trials are conducted in neonates under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, dose selection should be based on the best estimates of neonatal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics prior to conducting efficacy and safety studies in neonates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".