Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37927586›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2023

Simulating clinical trials for model-informed precision dosing: using warfarin treatment as a use case.

David Augustin, Ben Lambert, Martin Robinson, Ken Wang, David Gavaghan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. AI-powered in silico twins: redefining precision medicine through simulation, personalization, and predictive healthcare.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2025
    Review
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

David AugustinDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ben LambertCollege of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Martin RobinsonDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ken WangResearch and Early Development, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland.
David GavaghanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GBRoche (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment response variability across patients is a common phenomenon in clinical practice. For many drugs this inter-individual variability does not require much (if any) individualisation of dosing strategies. However, for some drugs, including chemotherapies and some monoclonal antibody treatments, individualisation of dosages are needed to avoid harmful adverse events. Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) is an emerging approach to guide the individualisation of dosing regimens of otherwise difficult-to-administer drugs. Several MIPD approaches have been suggested to predict dosing strategies, including regression, reinforcement learning (RL) and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling. A unified framework to study the strengths and limitations of these approaches is missing. We develop a framework to simulate clinical MIPD trials, providing a cost and time efficient way to test different MIPD approaches. Central for our framework is a clinical trial model that emulates the complexities in clinical practice that challenge successful treatment individualisation. We demonstrate this framework using warfarin treatment as a use case and investigate three popular MIPD methods: 1. Neural network regression; 2. Deep RL; and 3. PKPD modelling. We find that the PKPD model individualises warfarin dosing regimens with the highest success rate and the highest efficiency: 75.1% of the individuals display INRs inside the therapeutic range at the end of the simulated trial; and the median time in the therapeutic range (TTR) is 74%. In comparison, the regression model and the deep RL model have success rates of 47.0% and 65.8%, and median TTRs of 45% and 68%. We also find that the MIPD models can attain different degrees of individualisation: the Regression model individualises dosing regimens up to variability explained by covariates; the Deep RL model and the PKPD model individualise dosing regimens accounting also for additional variation using monitoring data. However, the Deep RL model focusses on control of the treatment response, while the PKPD model uses the data also to further the individualisation of predictions.

Indexed as

clinical trial simulationdeep learninginter-individual variabilityMIPDPKPD modellingprecision dosingreinforcement learningwarfarin

Identifiers

PMID37927586
PMCPMC10621790
OpenAlexW4387779610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.