MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560364466 · doi:10.2196/resprot.6559

Data Analysis Protocol for the Development and Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Incorporation Into the Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service - Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo)

2016· article· en· W2560364466 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alanna McEneny‐King, Gary Foster, Alfonso Iorio, Andrea N. Edginton

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)PharmacokineticsPopulationPopulation pharmacokineticsService (business)MedicineComputer sciencePharmacologyAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in a specific clotting factor. This results in spontaneous bleeding episodes and eventual arthropathy. The mainstay of hemophilia treatment is prophylactic replacement of the missing factor, but an optimal regimen remains to be determined. Rather, individualized prophylaxis has been suggested to improve both patient safety and resource utilization. However, uptake of this approach has been hampered by the demanding sampling schedules and complex calculations required to obtain individual estimates of pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. The use of population pharmacokinetics (PopPK) can alleviate this burden by reducing the number of plasma samples required for accurate estimation, but few tools incorporating this approach are readily available to clinicians. OBJECTIVE: The Web-accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service - Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo) project aims to bridge this gap by providing a Web-accessible service for the reliable estimation of individual PK parameters from only a few patient samples. This service is predicated on the development of validated brand-specific PopPK models. METHODS: We describe the data analysis plan for the development and evaluation of each PopPK model to be incorporated into the WAPPS-Hemo platform. The data sources and structure of the dataset are discussed first, followed by the procedures for handling both data below limit of quantification (BLQ) and absence of such BLQ data. Next, we outline the strategies for building the appropriate structural and covariate models, including the possible need for a process algorithm when PK behavior varies between subjects or significant covariates are not provided. Prior to use in a prospective manner, the models will undergo extensive evaluation using a variety of techniques such as diagnostic plots, bootstrap analysis and cross-validation. Finally, we describe the incorporation of a validated PopPK model into the Bayesian post hoc model to produce individualized estimates of PK parameters. RESULTS: Dense PK data has been collected for more than 20 brands of factor concentrate from both industry-sponsored and investigator-driven studies. The model development process is underway for the majority of molecules, with refinement and validation to be completed in 2017. Further, the WAPPS-Hemo co-investigator network has contributed more than 300 PK assessments for use in model development and evaluation. This constitutes the largest repository of this type of PK data globally. CONCLUSIONS: The WAPPS-Hemo service aims to eliminate barriers to the uptake of individualized PK-tailored hemophilia treatment. By incorporating this tool into routine practice, clinicians can implement a personalized dosing strategy without performing rigorous sampling or complex calculations. This service is centred on validated models developed according to the robust approach to PopPK modeling described herein. CLINICALTRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02061072; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02061072 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6mRIXJh55).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1310.042

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.

Opus teacher head0.546
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.066 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207