ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2007
Simulating pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fuzzy-parameterized models: a comparison of numerical methods.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Application of a Physiologically Based Toxicokinetic Model in Health Risk Assessment.Toxics · 2023Review
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of drug disposition in rat and human: a fuzzy arithmetic approach.Pharmaceutical research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical techniques have been traditionally used to deal with parametric variation in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, but these require substantial data for estimates of probability distributions. In the presence of limited, inaccurate or imprecise information, simulation with fuzzy numbers represents an alternative tool to handle parametric uncertainty. Existing methods for implementing fuzzy arithmetic may, however, have significant shortcomings in overestimating (e.g., conventional fuzzy arithmetic) and underestimating (e.g., vertex method) the output uncertainty. The purpose of the present study is to apply and compare the applicability of conventional fuzzy arithmetic, vertex method and two recently proposed numerical schemes, namely transformation and optimization methods, for uncertainty modeling in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fuzzy-parameterized systems. A series of test problems were examined, including empirical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, a function non-monotonic in its parameters, and a whole body physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Our results verified that conventional fuzzy arithmetic can lead to overestimation of response uncertainty and should be avoided. For the monotonic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, the vertex method accurately predicted fuzzy-valued output while incurring the least computational cost. It turned out that the choice of a suitable method for fuzzy simulation of the non-monotonic function depended on the required accuracy of the results: the vertex method was capable of eliciting an initial approximate solution with few function evaluations; for more accurate results, the transformation method was the most superior approach in terms of accuracy per unit CPU time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17710517What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.