ArticleThe AAPS journal2019
Evaluation of Assumptions Underpinning Pharmacometric Models.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacometrics modeling and simulation to assist phenobarbital dose optimization in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Mechanistic Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model of Sunitinib and Dopamine in MCF-7/Adr Xenografts: Linking Cellular Heterogeneity to Tumour Burden.The AAPS journal · 2020Article
- A 3D brain unit model to further improve prediction of local drug distribution within the brain.PloS one · 2020Article
- Model-free and kinetic modelling approaches for characterising non-equilibrium pharmacological pathway activity: Internalisation of cannabinoid CBBritish journal of pharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assumptions inherent to pharmacometric model development and use are not routinely acknowledged, described, or evaluated. The aim of this work is to present a framework for systematic evaluation of assumptions. To aid identification of assumptions, we categorise assumptions into two types: implicit and explicit assumptions. Implicit assumptions are inherent in a method or model and underpin its derivation and use. Explicit assumptions arise from heuristic principles and are typically defined by the user to enable the application of a method or model. A flowchart was developed for systematic evaluation of assumptions. For each assumption, the impact of assumption violation ('significant', 'insignificant', 'unknown') and the probability of assumption violation ('likely', 'unlikely', 'unknown') will be evaluated based on prior knowledge or the result of an additional bespoke study to arrive at a decision ('go', 'no-go') for both model building and model use. A table of assumptions with standardised headings has been proposed to facilitate the documentation of assumptions and evaluation of results. The utility of the proposed framework was illustrated using four assumptions underpinning a top-down model describing the warfarin-coagulation proteins' relationship. The next step of this work is to apply the framework to a series of other settings to fully assess its practicality and its value in identifying and making inferences from assumptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31385119What 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.