Evaluation of model‐integrated evidence approaches for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies using model averaging methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional approaches for establishing bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference formulations using non-compartmental analysis (NCA) may demonstrate low power in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies with sparse sampling. In this case, model-integrated evidence (MIE) approaches for BE assessment have been shown to increase power, but may suffer from selection bias problems if models are built on the same data used for BE assessment. This work presents model averaging methods for BE evaluation and compares the power and type I error of these methods to conventional BE approaches for simulated studies of oral and ophthalmic formulations. Two model averaging methods were examined: bootstrap model selection and weight-based model averaging with parameter uncertainty from three different sources, either from a sandwich covariance matrix, a bootstrap, or from sampling importance resampling (SIR). The proposed approaches increased power compared with conventional NCA-based BE approaches, especially for the ophthalmic formulation scenarios, and were simultaneously able to adequately control type I error. In the rich sampling scenario considered for oral formulation, the weight-based model averaging method with SIR uncertainty provided controlled type I error, that was closest to the target of 5%. In sparse-sampling designs, especially the single sample ophthalmic scenarios, the type I error was best controlled by the bootstrap model selection 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 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 | 0.059 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".