Performance of Different Population Pharmacokinetic Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an increased focus on population pharmacokinetics (PK) to improve the drug development process since the "Critical Path paper" by the Food and Drug Administration. This increased interest has given rise to additional algorithms. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this exercise was to compare the new algorithms iterative-2-stage (ITS) and maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) available in ADAPT 5 with other methods. METHODS: A total of 29 clinical trials with different study designs were simulated. Different algorithms were used to fit the simulated data, and the estimated parameters were compared with the true values. The algorithms ITS and MLEM were compared with the standard-2-stage, Iterative-2-Stage (IT2S) method in the IT2S package and the first-order conditional estimate (FOCE) method in NONMEM version VI. Imprecision and bias for the population PK parameters, variances, and individual PK parameters were used to compare the methods. RESULTS: Population PK parameters were well estimated and bias low for all nonlinear mixed effect modeling approaches. These approaches were superior to the standard-2-stage analyses. The algorithm MLEM was better than IT2S and ITS in predicting the PK and variability parameters. Residual variability was better estimated using MLEM and FOCE. A difference in the estimation of the variance exists between FOCE and the other methods. Variances estimated with FOCE often had shrinkage issues, whereas MLEM in ADAPT 5 had practically no shrinkage problems. Using MLEM, a reduction from 3000 to 1000 samples in the expectation maximization step had no impact on the results. CONCLUSIONS: The new algorithm MLEM in ADAPT 5 was consistently better than IT2S and ITS in its prediction of PK parameters, variances, and the residual variability. It was comparable with the FOCE method with significantly fewer shrinkage issues in the estimation of variance. The number of samples used in the expectation maximization step with MLEM did not influence the results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".