MAP Bayesian modelling combining striatal dopamine receptor occupancy and plasma concentrations to optimize antipsychotic dose regimens in individual patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: receptor occupancy (RO) in patients with schizophrenia treated with either olanzapine or risperidone, in order to facilitate clinician exploration of the impact of treatment strategies on RO using sparse plasma concentration measurements. METHODS: Previously developed population pharmacokinetic models for olanzapine and risperidone were combined with a pharmacodynamic model for D2 RO and implemented in the R programming language. Maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation was used to provide predictions of plasma concentration and RO based on sparse concentration sampling. These predictions were then compared to observed plasma concentration and RO. RESULTS: The average (standard deviation) response times of the tools, defined as the time required for the application to predict parameter values and display the output, were 2.8 (3.1) and 5.3 (4.3) seconds for olanzapine and risperidone, respectively. The mean error (95% confidence interval) and root mean squared error (95% confidence interval) of predicted vs. observed concentrations were 3.73 ng/mL (-2.42-9.87) and 10.816 ng/mL (6.71-14.93) for olanzapine, and 0.46 ng/mL (-4.56-5.47) and 6.68 ng/mL (3.57-9.78) for risperidone and its active metabolite (9-OH risperidone). Mean error and root mean squared error of RO were -1.47% (-4.65-1.69) and 5.80% (3.89-7.72) for olanzapine and -0.91% (-7.68-5.85) and 8.87% (4.56-13.17) for risperidone. CONCLUSION: RO from sparsely sampled concentration measurements in an accessible and accurate form.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".