Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37717242›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2023

Multivariate Exact Discrepancy: A New Tool for PK/PD Model Evaluation.

Sarah Baklouti, Emmanuelle Comets, Peggy Gandia, Didier Concordet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Pharmacokinetic Model Selection for Personalized Infliximab Dosing in IBD.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Sarah BakloutiLaboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, Institut Fédératif de Biologie, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Emmanuelle CometsUniversité Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, IAME, 75018, Paris, France.
Peggy GandiaLaboratoire de Pharmacocinétique et Toxicologie, Institut Fédératif de Biologie, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Didier ConcordetINTHERES, Université de Toulouse, INRAE, ENVT, Toulouse, France. d.concordet@envt.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-577X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacokinetic models are evaluated using three types of metrics: those based on estimating the typical pharmacokinetic parameters, those based on predicting individual pharmacokinetic parameters and those that compare data and model distributions. In the third groups of metrics, the best-known methods are Visual Predictive Check (VPC) and Normalised Prediction Distribution Error (NPDE). Despite their usefulness, these methods have some limitations, especially for the analysis of dependent concentrations, i.e., evaluated in the same patient.

objectiveIn this work, we propose an evaluation method that accounts for the dependency between concentrations.

methodsThanks to the study of the distribution of simulated vectors of concentrations, the method provides one probability per individual that its observations (i.e., concentrations) come from the studied model. The higher the probability, the better the model fits the individual. By examining the distribution of these probabilities for a set of individuals, we can evaluate the model as a whole.

resultsWe demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through two examples. Our approach successfully detects misspecification in the structural model and identifies outlier kinetics in a set of kinetics.

conclusionWe propose a straightforward method for evaluating models during their development and selecting a model to perform therapeutic drug monitoring. Based on our preliminary results, the method is very promising but needs to be validated on a larger scale.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringModels, BiologicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID37717242
PMCPMC10581936

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.