Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19697107›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2009

Methods of utilizing baseline values for indirect response models.

Sukyung Woo, Dipti Pawaskar, William J Jusko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Virusdisease · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Adjustment of endogenous concentrations in pharmacokinetic modeling.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sukyung WooDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA.
Dipti Pawaskar
William J Jusko

Funding

MATHEMATICAL MODELS IN PHARMACODYNAMICSR01GM057980 · NIGMS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI JUSKO, WILLIAM J., KRZYZANSKI, WOJCIECH · 1998 to 2013
$3.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM057980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study derives and assesses modified equations for Indirect Response Models (IDR) for normalizing data for baseline values (R (0)) and evaluates different methods of utilizing baseline information. Pharmacodynamic response equations for the four basic IDR models were adjusted to reflect a ratio to, a change from (e.g., subtraction), or percent change relative to baseline. The original and modified IDR equations were fitted individually to simulated data sets and compared for recovery of true parameter values. Handling of baseline values was investigated using: estimation (E), fixing at the starting value (F1), and fixing at an average of starting and returning values of response profiles (F2). The performance of each method was evaluated using simulated data with variability under various scenarios of different doses, numbers of data points, type of IDR model, and degree of residual errors. The median error and inter-quartile range relative to true values were used as indicators of bias and precision for each method. Applying IDR models to normalized data required modifications in writing differential equations and initial conditions. Use of an observed/baseline ratio led to parameter estimates of k (in) = k (out) and inability to detect differences in k (in) values for groups with different R (0), whereas the modified equations recovered the true values. An increase in variability increased the %Bias and %Imprecision for each R (0) fitting method and was more pronounced for 'F1'. The overall performance of 'F2' was as good as that of 'E' and better than 'F1'. The %Bias in estimation of parameters SC(50) (IC(50)) and k (out) followed the same trend, whereas use of 'F1' or 'F2' resulted in the least bias for S (max) (I (max)). The IDR equations need modifications to directly assess baseline-normalized data. In general, Method 'E' resulted in lesser bias and better precision compared to 'F1'. With rich datasets including sufficient information on the return to baseline, Method 'F2' is reasonable. Method 'E' offers no significant advantage over 'F1' with datasets lacking information on the return to baseline phase. Handling baseline responses properly is an essential aspect of applying pharmacodynamic models.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPharmacokineticsAlgorithmsComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLikelihood FunctionsPharmacologySoftware

Identifiers

PMID19697107
PMCPMC3712653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.