Tobramycin a Priori Dosing Regimens Based on PopPK Model Simulations in Critically Ill Patients: Are They Transferable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, multiple population pharmacokinetic models have been developed for drugs such as tobramycin that need therapeutic drug monitoring. Some of these models have been used to develop a priori dosing regimens for their respective populations. However, these dosing regimens may not apply to other populations. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate tobramycin population pharmacokinetic models in critically ill patients and establish an adequate dosing regimen. METHODS: Evaluated models were identified from a literature review of aminoglycoside population pharmacokinetic models in critically ill patients. After retrospective data collection in 2 Quebec hospitals, external evaluation and model re-estimation were performed with NONMEM (v7.5) to assess imprecision and bias values. Dosing regimens were simulated and compared between the best-performing model and its re-estimated counterparts. RESULTS: None of the 3 evaluated models showed acceptable imprecision or bias values in the data sets of the 19 patients. Similar percentages of target attainment were obtained for the original and re-estimated models after the dosing regimen simulations. CONCLUSION: Although the predictive performance evaluation criteria were inadequate, the original and re-estimated models yielded similar results. This raises the question of what a priori bias and imprecision thresholds should be defined as acceptable for the external evaluation of models to be applied in clinical practice. Studies evaluating the impact of these thresholds are needed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".