Model‐based meta‐analysis of ethnic differences and their variabilities in clearance of oral drugs classified by clearance mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the ethnic ratios (ERs) of oral clearance between Japanese and Western populations were subjected to model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) for 81 drugs evaluated in 673 clinical studies. The drugs were classified into eight groups according to the clearance mechanism, and the ER for each group was inferred together with interindividual variability (IIV), interstudy variability (ISV), and inter-drug variability within a group (IDV) using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. The ER, IIV, ISV, and IDV were dependent on the clearance mechanism, and, except for particular groups such as drugs metabolized by polymorphic enzymes or their clearance mechanism is not confirmative, the ethnic difference was found to be generally small. The IIV was well-matched across ethnicities, and the ISV was approximately half of the IIV as the coefficient of variation. To adequately assess ethnic differences in oral clearance without false detections, phase I studies should be designed with full consideration of the mechanism of clearance. This study suggests that the methodology of classifying drugs based on the mechanism that causes ethnic differences and performing MBMA with statistical techniques such as MCMC analysis is helpful for a rational understanding of ethnic differences and for strategic drug development.
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 | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".