Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26112250›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2015

Evaluation of Approaches to Deal with Low-Frequency Nuisance Covariates in Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses.

Chakradhar V Lagishetty, Stephen B Duffull

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Covariate modeling in pharmacometrics: General points for consideration.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Chakradhar V LagishettySchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. chakradharshetty@gmail.com.
Stephen B DuffullSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical studies include occurrences of rare variables, like genotypes, which due to their frequency and strength render their effects difficult to estimate from a dataset. Variables that influence the estimated value of a model-based parameter are termed covariates. It is often difficult to determine if such an effect is significant, since type I error can be inflated when the covariate is rare. Their presence may have either an insubstantial effect on the parameters of interest, hence are ignorable, or conversely they may be influential and therefore non-ignorable. In the case that these covariate effects cannot be estimated due to power and are non-ignorable, then these are considered nuisance, in that they have to be considered but due to type 1 error are of limited interest. This study assesses methods of handling nuisance covariate effects. The specific objectives include (1) calibrating the frequency of a covariate that is associated with type 1 error inflation, (2) calibrating its strength that renders it non-ignorable and (3) evaluating methods for handling these non-ignorable covariates in a nonlinear mixed effects model setting. Type 1 error was determined for the Wald test. Methods considered for handling the nuisance covariate effects were case deletion, Box-Cox transformation and inclusion of a specific fixed effects parameter. Non-ignorable nuisance covariates were found to be effectively handled through addition of a fixed effect parameter.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsHumansBox-Cox transformationcase deletion and pharmacometricsfixed effect parameternuisance covariate

Identifiers

PMID26112250
PMCPMC4627442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.