ArticleThe AAPS journal2017
Further Evaluation of Covariate Analysis using Empirical Bayes Estimates in Population Pharmacokinetics: the Perception of Shrinkage and Likelihood Ratio Test.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Covariate Model Selection Approaches for Population Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review of Existing Methods, From SCM to AI.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Population pharmacokinetic modeling of ceftriaxone in cerebrospinal fluid in children: should we be using once- or twice-daily dosing for meningitis?Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- "De-Shrinking" EBEs: The Solution for Bayesian Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Article
- Effects of Postpartum Supplemental Oral Ca for Dairy Cows Fed Prepartum Dietary Acidogenic Salts.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Choosing the Allometric Exponent in Covariate Model Building.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2019Article
- Covariates in Pharmacometric Repeated Time-to-Event Models: Old and New (Pre)Selection Tools.The AAPS journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Covariate analysis based on population pharmacokinetics (PPK) is used to identify clinically relevant factors. The likelihood ratio test (LRT) based on nonlinear mixed effect model fits is currently recommended for covariate identification, whereas individual empirical Bayesian estimates (EBEs) are considered unreliable due to the presence of shrinkage. The objectives of this research were to investigate the type I error for LRT and EBE approaches, to confirm the similarity of power between the LRT and EBE approaches from a previous report and to explore the influence of shrinkage on LRT and EBE inferences. Using an oral one-compartment PK model with a single covariate impacting on clearance, we conducted a wide range of simulations according to a two-way factorial design. The results revealed that the EBE-based regression not only provided almost identical power for detecting a covariate effect, but also controlled the false positive rate better than the LRT approach. Shrinkage of EBEs is likely not the root cause for decrease in power or inflated false positive rate although the size of the covariate effect tends to be underestimated at high shrinkage. In summary, contrary to the current recommendations, EBEs may be a better choice for statistical tests in PPK covariate analysis compared to LRT. We proposed a three-step covariate modeling approach for population PK analysis to utilize the advantages of EBEs while overcoming their shortcomings, which allows not only markedly reducing the run time for population PK analysis, but also providing more accurate covariate tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27761720What 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.