Haemoglobin response modelling under erythropoietin treatment: Physiological model‐informed machine learning method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Patients with renal anaemia are usually treated with recombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) because of insufficient renal EPO secretion. The establishment of a good haemoglobin (Hgb) response model is a necessary condition for dose optimization design. The purpose of this paper is to apply physics‐informed neural networks (PINN) to build the Hgb response model under EPO treatment. Neural network training is guided by a physiological model to avoid overfitting problems. During the training process, the parameters of the physiological model can be estimated simultaneously. To handle differential equations with impulse inputs and time delays, we propose approximate model equations for the pharmacokinetic (PK) model and the pharmacodynamic (PD) model, respectively. The modified PK/PD model was incorporated into PINN for training. Tests on simulated data and clinical data show that the proposed method has better performance than data‐driven modelling methods and the traditional physiological modelling based on the least squares method.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".