Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27215925›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2016

Comparing the performance of FOCE and different expectation-maximization methods in handling complex population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models.

Xiaoxi Liu, Yuhuan Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. RPEM: Randomized Monte Carlo parametric expectation maximization algorithm.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Metaheuristics for pharmacometrics.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Xiaoxi LiuDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Rm 1S010, Salt Lake City, UT, 84102, USA. xiaoxi.liu@hsc.utah.edu.
Yuhuan WangDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Rm 1S010, Salt Lake City, UT, 84102, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the purpose of population pharmacometric modeling, a variety of mathematic algorithms are implemented in major modeling software packages to facilitate the maximum likelihood modeling, such as FO, FOCE, Laplace, ITS and EM. These methods are all designed to estimate the set of parameters that maximize the joint likelihood of observations in a given problem. While FOCE is still currently the most widely used method in population modeling, EM methods are getting more popular as the current-generation methods of choice because of their robustness with more complex models and sparse data structures. There are several versions of EM method implementation that are available in public modeling software packages. Although there have been several studies and reviews comparing the performance of different methods in handling relatively simple models, there has not been a dedicated study to compare different versions of EM algorithms in solving complex PBPK models. This study took everolimus as a model drug and simulated PK data based on published results. Three most popular EM methods (SAEM, IMP and QRPEM) and FOCE (as a benchmark reference) were evaluated for their estimation accuracy and converging speed when solving models of increased complexity. Both sparse and rich sampling data structure were tested. We concluded that FOCE was superior to EM methods for simple structured models. For more complex models and/ or sparse data, EM methods are much more robust. While the estimation accuracy was very close across EM methods, the general ranking of speed (fastest to slowest) was: QRPEM, IMP and SAEM. IMP gave the most realistic estimation of parameter standard errors, while under- and over- estimation of standard errors were observed in SAEM and QRPEM methods.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsPhysiological PhenomenaAlgorithmsBenchmarkingComputer SimulationEverolimusHumansLikelihood FunctionsOrgan SpecificityPharmaceutical PreparationsTissue DistributionEverolimusPharmaceutical PreparationsAlgorithmEverolimusExpectation-maximization methodsFOCEPhysiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelingSparse data

Identifiers

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.