Nlmixr2 Versus NONMEM: An Evaluation of Maximum A Posteriori Bayesian Estimates Following External Evaluation of Gentamicin and Tobramycin Population Pharmacokinetic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project is to compare the results of the same study carried out on NONMEM and nlmixr2. This analysis consists of evaluating previously published population pharmacokinetic models of gentamicin and tobramycin in our population of interest with sparse concentrations. A literature review was performed to determine the gentamicin and tobramycin models in critically ill adult patients. In parallel, gentamicin and tobramycin dosing data, information on the treatment, the patient, and the bacteria were collected retrospectively in 2 Quebec establishments. The external evaluations were previously performed using NONMEM Version 7.5. Model equations were rewritten with R, and external evaluations were performed using nlmixr2. Predictive performance was assessed based on the estimation of bias and imprecision of the prediction error for maximum a posteriori (MAP) Bayesian PK parameter and observed concentrations. Comparison between nlmixr2 and NONMEM was performed on 4 gentamicin and 3 tobramycin population pharmacokinetic models. Compared to NONMEM, for gentamicin and tobramycin clearance and central volume of distribution, nlmixr2 produced individual pharmacokinetic parameters with bias values ranging from -32.5% to 5.67% and imprecision values ranging from 6.33% to 32.5%. Despite these differences, population bias and imprecision for sparse concentrations were low and ranged from 0% to 5.3% and 0.2% to 6.5%, respectively. The external evaluations performed with both software packages resulted in the same interpretation in terms of population predictive performance for all 7 models. Nlmxir2 showed comparable predictive performance with NONMEM with sparse concentrations that are, at most, sampled twice within a single dose administration (peak and trough).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".