Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936389›Full record

ArticleCurrent pharmacology reports2016

Disease Progression Modeling: Key Concepts and Recent Developments.

Sarah F Cook, Robert R Bies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current pharmacology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Factors associated with pathologic myopia onset and progression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Sarah F CookDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 445 Kapoor Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.
Robert R BiesDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 445 Kapoor Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disease modeling involves the use of mathematical functions to describe quantitatively the time course of disease progression. In order to characterize the natural progression of disease, these models generally incorporate longitudinal data for some biomarker(s) of disease severity or can incorporate more direct measures of disease severity. Disease models are also often linked to pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models so that the influence of drug treatment on disease progression can be quantified and evaluated. Regulatory agencies have embraced disease progression models as powerful tools that can be used to improve drug development productivity. This article provides a brief overview of key concepts in disease progression modeling followed by illustrative examples from models for Alzheimer's disease. Finally, recent novel applications in which disease progression models have been linked to cost-effectiveness analysis and genomic analysis are described.

Indexed as

clinical pharmacologydisease progressiondrug developmentmodeling and simulationpharmacometrics

Identifiers

PMID28936389
PMCPMC5602534

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.