ArticleThe AAPS journal2024
Comparison of Two Methods for Determining Item Characteristic Functions and Latent Variable Time-Course for Pharmacometric Item Response Models.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
There are examples in the literature demonstrating different approaches to defining the item characteristic functions (ICF) and characterizing the latent variable time-course within a pharmacometrics item response theory (IRT) framework. One such method estimates both the ICF and latent variable time-course simultaneously, and another method establishes the ICF first then models the latent variable directly. To date, a direct comparison of the "simultaneous" and "sequential" methodologies described in this work has not yet been systematically investigated. Item parameters from a graded response IRT model developed from Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI) study data were used as simulation parameters. Each method was evaluated under the following conditions: (i) with and without drug effect and (ii) slow progression rate with smaller sample size and rapid progression rate with larger sample size. Overall, the methods performed similarly, with low bias and good precision for key parameters and hypothesis testing for drug effect. The ICF parameters were well determined when the model was correctly specified, with an increase in precision in the scenario with rapid progression. In terms of drug effect, both methods had large estimation bias for the slow progression rate; however, this bias can be considered small relative to overall progression rate. Both methods demonstrated type 1 error control and similar discrimination between model with and without drug effect. The simultaneous method was slightly more precise than the sequential method while the sequential method was more robust towards longitudinal model misspecification and offers practical advantages in model building.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38273096What 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.