ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2024
Two new user-friendly methods to assess pharmacometric parameter identifiability on categorical and continuous scales.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the landscape of parameter identifiability methods: A workflow recommendation for model development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- Two new user-friendly methods to assess pharmacometric parameter identifiability on categorical and continuous scales.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parameter identifiability methods assess whether the parameters of a model are uniquely determined by the observations. While the success of a model fit can provide some information on this, it can be valuable to determine identifiability before any fit has been attempted, or to separate identifiability from other issues. Two concepts that lean themselves well for identifiability analysis and have been underutilized are the sensitivity matrix (SM) and the Fisher information matrix (FIM). This paper presents two newly developed methods, one based on the SM and one based on the FIM. Both methods can assess local identifiability for a wide set of models, can be used with limited effort, and are freely available. The methods require the proposed model in the form of a set of differential equations, the parameter values, and the study design as input. They can be used a priori, as they do not need observed values or a successful model fit. Traditional methods provide a single categorical (yes/no) answer to the question of identifiability. In many cases, this is not very informative, and identifiability depends on study design (e.g., dose levels or observation times) and parameter values. Indicators on a continuous scale characterizing the level of identifiability would provide more detailed and relevant information, for example, to guide model development. Our two methods provide both categorical and continuous indicators. Both methods indicate which parameter combinations are difficult to identify by calculating the directions in parameter space that are least identifiable. The methods were validated with an example problem.
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.