MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286869655 · doi:10.1177/26348535211062229

Derivation of a Pharmacokinetic Model to Include a Plasma-Derived, von Willebrand Factor-Containing Factor VIII (Koate <sup>®</sup> -DVI) Concentrate and its Low-Dose Use

2021· article· en· W4286869655 on OpenAlexaff
Dagmar M. Hajducek, Fitri Primacakti, Novie Amelia Chozie, Roser Mir, Alanna McEneny‐King, Alfonso Iorio, Andrea N. Edginton

Bibliographic record

VenuePlasmatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsMedicineCovariatePopulationBayesian probabilityStatisticsBioequivalenceInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Population pharmacokinetics (popPK) has been reliably leveraged to generate individual PK in hemophilia patients. Specific popPK models are suited to predict individual PK under a variety of scenarios that may not be captured by clinical trials, allowing for individualized prophylactic treatment. The Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service-Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo) project generates individually predicted pharmacokinetic profiles relying on concentrate-specific popPK models used for Bayesian forecasting. Objective Specification of a popPK model for the plasma-derived factor VIII (FVIII) concentrate Koate-DVI and its suitability for pharmacokinetic estimation in low-dose scenarios. Methods A popPK model was developed for Koate-DVI WAPPS-Hemo PK data in combination with the existing WAPPS-Hemo Fanhdi/Alphanate model derivation dataset using nonlinear mixed effects modelling, and was validated via cross-validation and prediction-corrected Visual Predictive Checks (pcVPC). Bootstrap and PK outcomes between the Fanhdi/Alphanate and the Fanhdi/Alphanate/Koate models were compared, and the relative error distributions from a limited sampling analysis (LSA) under the latter model for low and normal doses (10 vs 50 IU/kg) and inclusion/exclusion of pre-dose measurements. Results A Fanhdi/Alphanate/Koate model was derived (126 patients, ages 1–71 years) after deeming a Koate-brand covariate not clinically significant, resulting in similar parameter estimates than the Fanhdi/Alphanate model with satisfactory goodness of fit, cross-validation and pcVPC results. Low-dose predictions resulted in a higher accuracy and slightly lower precision of half-life ([Formula: see text]-phase) and time to 2% trough (TAT2%) estimates than normal dose (median absolute bias for half-life: 0.12 vs 0.5%; median interquartile range, IQR: 11.79% vs 9.95%). Precision improved under pre-dose designs by 2 to 3% and remained similar between 5- and 2-sample designs (IQR reduction<1.8%). Conclusions The Fanhdi/Alphanate/Koate model is appropriate for Bayesian forecasting in the WAPPS-Hemo platform, providing a comparable prediction capability for low and normal dosing regimens (10 vs 50 IU/Kg).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlasmatology→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→