Real-time Dose Adjustment of Cyclophosphamide in a Preparative Regimen for Hematopoietic Cell Transplant: A Bayesian Pharmacokinetic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dose-related toxicity of cyclophosphamide may be reduced and therapeutic efficacy may be improved by pharmacokinetic sampling and dose adjustment to achieve a target area under the curve (AUC) for two of its metabolites, hydroxycyclophosphamide (HCY) and carboxyethylphosphoramide mustard (CEPM). To facilitate real-time dose adjustment, we developed open-source code within the statistical software R that incorporates individual data into a population pharmacokinetic model. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Dosage prediction performance was compared to that obtained with nonlinear mixed-effects modeling using NONMEM in 20 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide. Bayesian estimation of individual pharmacokinetic parameters was accomplished from limited (i.e., five samples over 0-16 hours) sampling of plasma HCY and CEPM after the initial cyclophosphamide dose. Conditional on individual pharmacokinetics, simulations of the AUC of both HCY and CEPM were provided for a range of second doses (i.e., 0-100 mg/kg cyclophosphamide). RESULTS: The results compared favorably with NONMEM and returned accurate predictions for AUCs of HCY and CEPM with comparable mean absolute prediction error and root mean square prediction error. With our method, the mean absolute prediction error and root mean square prediction error of AUC CEPM were 11.0% and 12.8% and AUC HCY were 31.7% and 44.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed dose adjustment software that potentially can be used to adjust cyclophosphamide dosing in a clinical setting, thus expanding the opportunity for pharmacokinetic individualization of cyclophosphamide. The software is simple to use (requiring no programming experience), reads individual patient data directly from an Excel spreadsheet, and runs in less than 5 minutes on a desktop PC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".