ArticlePharmaceutics2023
External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Methotrexate for Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatric Patients with Acute Lymphoid Leukemia.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal accompanying diagnosis design through external validation of population pharmacokinetic models for moxifloxacin in tuberculosis patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Cabotegravir, During Its Oral and Intramuscular Administration in HIV-Infected Patients.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Observational
- Guidance for External Evaluation and Selection of Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Precision Dosing.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Review
- Population Pharmacokinetics and Covariate Analysis of Methotrexate in Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Fixed parameters in the population pharmacokinetic modeling of valproic acid might not be suitable: external validation in Chinese adults with epilepsy or after neurosurgery.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Systematic Evaluation of Osimertinib Population Pharmacokinetic Models in a Cohort of Dutch Adults with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2024Article
- Population Pharmacokinetic Model of Methotrexate in Brazilian Pediatric Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Pharmaceutical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethotrexate (MTX) is a key immunosuppressant for children with acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and it has a narrow therapeutic window and relatively high pharmacokinetic variability. Several population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models of MTX in ALL children have been reported, but the validity of these models for model-informed precision dosing in clinical practice is unclear. This study set out to evaluate the predictive performance of published pediatric PopPK models of MTX using an independent patient cohort.
methodsA PubMed literature search was performed to identify suitable models for evaluation. Demographics and measurements of the validation dataset were retrospectively collected from the medical records of ALL children who had received intravenous MTX. Predictive performance for each model was assessed by visual comparison of predictions to observations, median and mean predicted error (PE), and relative root mean squared error (RMSE).
resultsSix models were identified for external evaluation, carried out on a dataset containing 354 concentrations from 51 pediatrics. Model performance varied considerably from one model to another. Different models had the median PE for population and individual predictions at -33.23% to 442.04% and -25.20% to 6.52%, mean PE for population and individual predictions at -25.51% to 780.87% and 1.33% to 64.44%, and RMSE for population and individual predictions at 62.88% to 1182.24% and 63.39% to 152.25%. All models showed relatively high RMSE.
conclusionsSome of the published models showed reasonably low levels of bias but had some problems with imprecision, and extensive evaluation is needed before model application in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.