Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816519›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2024

Machine-Learning Assisted Screening of Correlated Covariates: Application to Clinical Data of Desipramine.

Innocent Gerald Asiimwe, Bonginkosi S'fiso Ndzamba, Samer Mouksassi, Goonaseelan Colin Pillai, Aurelie Lombard, Jennifer Lang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

6 authors.

Innocent Gerald AsiimweThe Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. i.asiimwe@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1196-1822
Bonginkosi S'fiso NdzambaAPT-Africa Fellowship Program, c/o Pharmacometrics Africa NPC, K45 Old Main Building, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
Samer MouksassiCertara, Cairo, Egypt.
Goonaseelan Colin PillaiAPT-Africa Fellowship Program, c/o Pharmacometrics Africa NPC, K45 Old Main Building, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5658-3837
Aurelie LombardEli Lilly & Company, Neuilly, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3201-6352
Jennifer LangEli Lilly & Company, Bracknell, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1561-6660

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stepwise covariate modeling (SCM) has a high computational burden and can select the wrong covariates. Machine learning (ML) has been proposed as a screening tool to improve the efficiency of covariate selection, but little is known about how to apply ML on actual clinical data. First, we simulated datasets based on clinical data to compare the performance of various ML and traditional pharmacometrics (PMX) techniques with and without accounting for highly-correlated covariates. This simulation step identified the ML algorithm and the number of top covariates to select when using the actual clinical data. A previously developed desipramine population-pharmacokinetic model was used to simulate virtual subjects. Fifteen covariates were considered with four having an effect included. Based on the F1 score (an accuracy measure), ridge regression was the most accurate ML technique on 200 simulated datasets (F1 score = 0.475 ± 0.231), a performance which almost doubled when highly-correlated covariates were accounted for (F1 score = 0.860 ± 0.158). These performances were better than forwards selection with SCM (F1 score = 0.251 ± 0.274 and 0.499 ± 0.381 without/with correlations respectively). In terms of computational cost, ridge regression (0.42 ± 0.07 seconds/simulated dataset, 1 thread) was ~20,000 times faster than SCM (2.30 ± 2.29 hours, 15 threads). On the clinical dataset, prescreening with the selected ML algorithm reduced SCM runtime by 42.86% (from 1.75 to 1.00 days) and produced the same final model as SCM only. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that accounting for highly-correlated covariates improves ML prescreening accuracy. The choice of ML method and the proportion of important covariates (unknown a priori) can be guided by simulations.

Indexed as

DesipramineMachine LearningAlgorithmsAntidepressive Agents, TricyclicComputer SimulationHumansModels, BiologicalAntidepressive Agents, TricyclicDesipraminedesipraminemachine learningmodeling and simulationpharmacometricspopulation pharmacokinetics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.