An Evaluation of an Optimal Sampling Strategy for Meropenem in Febrile Neutropenics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal sampling design with nonparametric population modeling offers the opportunity to determine pharmacokinetic parameters for patients in whom blood sampling is restricted. This approach was compared to a standard individualized modeling method for meropenem pharmacokinetics in febrile neutropenic patients. The population modeling program, nonparametric approach of expectation maximization (NPEM), with a full data set was compared to a sparse data set selected by D-optimal sampling design. The authors demonstrated that the D-optimal sampling strategy, when applied to this clinical population, provided good pharmacokinetic parameter estimates along with their variability. Four individualized and optimally selected sampling time points provided the same parameter estimates as more intensive sampling regimens using traditional and population modeling techniques. The different modeling methods were considerably consistent, except for the estimation of CL(d) with sparse sampling. The findings suggest that D-optimal sparse sampling is a reasonable approach to population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies during drug development when limited sampling is necessary.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".