ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2017
Estimation of QT interval prolongation through model-averaging.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current method to analyze concentration-QT interval data, which is based on predictions conditional on a best model, fails to take into account the uncertainty of the model. Previous studies have suggested that failure to take into account model uncertainty using a best model approach can result in confidence intervals that are overly optimistic and may be too narrow. Theoretically, more realistic estimates are obtained using model-averaging where the overall point estimate and confidence interval are a weighted-average from a set of candidate models, the weights of which are equal to each model's Akaike weight. Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the degree of narrowness in the confidence interval for the degree of QT prolongation under a single ascending dose and thorough QT trial design. Results showed that model averaging performed as well as the best model approach under most conditions with no numeric advantage to using a model averaging approach. No difference was observed in the coverage of the confidence intervals when the best model and model averaging was done by AIC, AICc, or BIC, although in certain circumstances the coverage of the confidence interval themselves tended to be too narrow when using BIC. Modelers can continue to use the best model approach for concentration-QT modeling with confidence, although model averaging may offer more face validity, may be of value in cases where there is uncertainty or misspecification in the best model, and be more palatable to a non-technical reviewer than the best model approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28421417What 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.