Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36346135›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022

Evaluation of machine learning methods for covariate data imputation in pharmacometrics.

Dominic Stefan Bräm, Uri Nahum, Andrew Atkinson, Gilbert Koch, Marc Pfister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Covariate modeling in pharmacometrics: General points for consideration.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Low-dimensional neural ODEs and their application in pharmacokinetics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors.

Dominic Stefan BrämPediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9094-8361
Uri NahumPediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6186-1830
Andrew AtkinsonPediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5834-8315
Gilbert KochPediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9386-0506
Marc PfisterPediatric Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, University Children's Hospital Basel (UKBB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2597-1228

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Missing data create challenges in clinical research because they lead to loss of statistical power and potentially to biased results. Missing covariate data must be handled with suitable approaches to prepare datasets for pharmacometric analyses, such as population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses. To this end, various statistical methods have been widely adopted. Here, we introduce two machine-learning (ML) methods capable of imputing missing covariate data in a pharmacometric setting. Based on a previously published pharmacometric analysis, we simulated multiple missing data scenarios. We compared the performance of four established statistical methods, listwise deletion, mean imputation, standard multiple imputation (hereafter "Norm"), and predictive mean matching (PMM) and two ML based methods, random forest (RF) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), to handle missing covariate data in a statistically plausible manner. The investigated ML-based methods can be used to impute missing covariate data in a pharmacometric setting. Both traditional imputation approaches and ML-based methods perform well in the scenarios studied, with some restrictions for individual methods. The three methods exhibiting the best performance in terms of least bias for the investigated scenarios are the statistical method PMM and the two ML-based methods RF and ANN. ML-based approaches had comparable good results to the best performing established method PMM. Furthermore, ML methods provide added flexibility when encountering more complex nonlinear relationships, especially when associated parameters are suitably tuned to enhance predictive performance.

Indexed as

Machine LearningBiasComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumans

Identifiers

PMID36346135
PMCPMC9755916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.