Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30850918›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2019

Variability Attribution for Automated Model Building.

Moustafa M A Ibrahim, Rikard Nordgren, Maria C Kjellsson, Mats O Karlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Moustafa M A IbrahimDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Rikard NordgrenDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria C KjellssonDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mats O KarlssonDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. mats.karlsson@farmbio.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the possible advantages of using linearization to evaluate models of residual unexplained variability (RUV) for automated model building in a similar fashion to the recently developed method "residual modeling." Residual modeling, although fast and easy to automate, cannot identify the impact of implementing the needed RUV model on the imprecision of the rest of model parameters. We used six RUV models to be tested with 12 real data examples. Each example was first linearized; then, we assessed the agreement in improvement of fit between the base model and its extended models for linearization and conventional analysis, in comparison to residual modeling performance. Afterward, we compared the estimates of parameters' variabilities and their uncertainties obtained by linearization to conventional analysis. Linearization accurately identified and quantified the nature and magnitude of RUV model misspecification similar to residual modeling. In addition, linearization identified the direction of change and quantified the magnitude of this change in variability parameters and their uncertainties. This method is implemented in the software package PsN for automated model building/evaluation with continuous data.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalChemistry, PharmaceuticalDatasets as TopicNonlinear DynamicsSoftwareUncertaintyautomated model buildinglinearizationmodel evaluationnonlinear mixed effects modelsstochastic model

Identifiers

PMID30850918
PMCPMC6505507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.