Development and evaluation of the population pharmacokinetic models for FVIII and FIX concentrates of the WAPPS‐Hemo project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service (WAPPS) project generates individually predicted pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and tailored prophylactic treatment regimens for haemophilic patients, which rely on a set of population PK (PopPK) models providing concentrate-specific priors for the Bayesian forecasting methodology. AIM: To describe the predictive performance of the WAPPS PopPK models in use on the WAPPS-Hemo platform. METHODS: Data for modelling include dense PK data obtained from industry sponsored and independent PK studies, and dense and sparse data accumulated through WAPPS-Hemo. WAPPS PopPK models were developed via non-linear mixed-effect modelling taking into account the effects of covariates and between-individual-and sometimes between-occasion-variability. Model evaluation consisted of (a) prediction-corrected Visual Predictive Check (pcVPC), (b) Limited Sampling Analysis (LSA) and (c) repeated hold-out cross-validation. RESULTS: Thirty-three WAPPS PopPK models built on data from 3188 patients (ages 1-78 years) under treatment by factor VIII or IX products (FVIII, FIX) were evaluated. Overall, models exhibit excellent performance characteristics. The pcVPC shows that the observed PK data fall within acceptable 90% interpercentile predictive bands. A slight overprediction beyond the expected half-life, an anticipated result of using sparse data, occurs for some models. The LSA results in lower than 3% of relative error for FVIII and FIX products and 16% for engineered FIX products. Cross-Validation analysis yields relative errors lower than 1.5% and 1.4% in estimates of half-life and time to 0.02 IU/mL, respectively. CONCLUSION: The WAPPS-Hemo models consistently showed excellent performance characteristics for the intended use for Bayesian forecasting of individual PK profiles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".