Mining Small Routine Clinical Data: A Population Pharmacokinetic Model and Optimal Sampling Times of Capecitabine and its Metabolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study was performed to demonstrate that small amounts of routine clinical data allow to generate valuable knowledge. Concretely, the aims of this research were to build a joint population pharmacokinetic model for capecitabine and three of its metabolites (5-DFUR, 5-FU and 5-FUH2) and to determine optimal sampling times for therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: We used data of 7 treatment cycles of capecitabine in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The population pharmacokinetic model was built as a multicompartmental model using NONMEM and was internally validated by visual predictive check. Optimal sampling times were estimated using PFIM 4.0 following D-optimality criterion. RESULTS: The final model was a multicompartmental model which represented the sequential transformations from capecitabine to its metabolites 5-DFUR, 5-FU and 5-FUH2 and was correctly validated. The optimal sampling times were 0.546, 0.892, 1.562, 4.736 and 8 hours after the administration of the drug. For its correct implementation in clinical practice, the values were rounded to 0.5, 1, 1.5, 5 and 8 hours after the administration of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine, 5-DFUR, 5-FU and 5-FUH2 can be correctly described by the joint multicompartmental model presented in this work. The aforementioned times are optimal to maximize the information of samples. Useful knowledge can be obtained for clinical practice from small databases.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".