ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
On inductive biases for the robust and interpretable prediction of drug concentrations using deep compartment models.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative applications of artificial intelligence technology in pharmacometrics.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Low-dimensional neural ordinary differential equations accounting for inter-individual variability implemented in Monolix and NONMEM.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Mixed effect estimation in deep compartment models: Variational methods outperform first-order approximations.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional pharmacokinetic (PK) models contain several useful inductive biases guiding model convergence to more realistic predictions of drug concentrations. Implementing similar biases in standard neural networks can be challenging, but might be fundamental for model robustness and predictive performance. In this study, we build on the deep compartment model (DCM) architecture by introducing constraints that guide the model to explore more physiologically realistic solutions. Using a simulation study, we show that constraints improve robustness in sparse data settings. Additionally, predicted concentration-time curves took on more realistic shapes compared to unconstrained models. Next, we propose the use of multi-branch networks, where each covariate can be connected to specific PK parameters, to reduce the propensity of models to learn spurious effects. Another benefit of this architecture is that covariate effects are isolated, enabling model interpretability through the visualization of learned functions. We show that all models were sensitive to learning false effects when trained in the presence of unimportant covariates, indicating the importance of selecting an appropriate set of covariates to link to the PK parameters. Finally, we compared the predictive performance of the constrained models to previous relevant population PK models on a real-world data set of 69 haemophilia A patients. Here, constrained models obtained higher accuracy compared to the standard DCM, with the multi-branch network outperforming previous PK models. We conclude that physiological-based constraints can improve model robustness. We describe an interpretable architecture which aids model trust, which will be key for the adoption of machine learning-based models 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.