ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2023
Investigating the contribution of residual unexplained variability components on bias and imprecision of parameter estimates in population pharmacokinetic mixed-effects modeling.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of Administration Time Errors on Clearance Estimation in Pharmacokinetic Analyses.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NLMEM) approach of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data, two levels of random effects are generally modeled: between-subject variability (BSV) and residual unexplained variability (RUV). The goal of this simulation-estimation study was to investigate the extent to which PK and RUV model misspecification, errors in recording dosing and sampling times, and variability in drug content uniformity contribute to the estimated magnitude of RUV and PK parameter bias. A two-compartment model with first-order absorption and linear elimination was simulated as a true model. PK parameters were clearance 5.0 L/h; central volume of distribution 35 L; inter-compartmental clearance 50 L/h; peripheral volume of distribution 50 L. All parameters were assumed to have a 30% coefficient of variation (CV). One hundred in-silico subjects were administered a labeled dose of 120 mg under 4 sample collection designs. PK and RUV model misspecifications were associated with relatively larger increases in the magnitude of RUV compared to other sources for all levels of sampling design. The contribution of dose and dosing time misspecifications have negligible effects on RUV but result in higher bias in PK parameter estimates. Inaccurate sampling time data results in biased RUV and increases with the magnitude of perturbations. Combined perturbation scenarios in the studied sources will propagate the variability and accumulate in RUV magnitude and bias in PK parameter estimates. This work provides insight into the potential contributions of many factors that comprise RUV and bias in PK parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36617366What 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.