Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37503916›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2023

Clinical decision support for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia using a hybrid pharmacodynamic/machine learning model.

Jasmine H Hughes, Dominic M H Tong, Vanessa Burns, Bobby Daly, Pedram Razavi, Jaap J Boelens, Srijib Goswami, Ron J Keizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rising Role of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Pharmacometrics and Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatrics.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Jasmine H HughesInsight Rx, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3053-1251
Dominic M H TongInsight Rx, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.
Vanessa BurnsInsight Rx, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.
Bobby DalyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Pedram RazaviMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jaap J BoelensMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Srijib GoswamiInsight Rx, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.
Ron J KeizerInsight Rx, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consensus guidelines recommend use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor in patients deemed at risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, however, these risk models are limited in the factors they consider and miss some cases of neutropenia. Clinical decision making could be supported using models that better tailor their predictions to the individual patient using the wealth of data available in electronic health records (EHRs). Here, we present a hybrid pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD)/machine learning (ML) approach that uses predictions and individual Bayesian parameter estimates from a PKPD model to enrich an ML model built on her data. We demonstrate this approach using models developed on a large real-world data set of 9121 patients treated for lymphoma, breast, or thoracic cancer. We also investigate the benefits of augmenting the training data using synthetic data simulated with the PKPD model. We find that PKPD-enrichment of ML models improves prediction of grade 3-4 neutropenia, as measured by higher precision (61%) and recall (39%) compared to PKPD model predictions (47%, 33%) or base ML model predictions (51%, 31%). PKPD augmentation of ML models showed minor improvements in recall (44%) but not precision (56%), and data augmentation required careful tuning to control overfitting its predictions to the PKPD model. PKPD enrichment of ML shows promise for leveraging both the physiology-informed predictions of PKPD and the ability of ML to learn predictor-outcome relationships from large data sets to predict patient response to drugs in a clinical precision dosing context.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalNeutropeniaBayes TheoremFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansAntineoplastic AgentsGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor

Identifiers

PMID37503916
PMCPMC10681461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.