ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
pyDarwin machine learning algorithms application and comparison in nonlinear mixed-effect model selection and optimization.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Performance of pyDarwin-Selected Versus Expert-Developed Paediatric Tobramycin Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Model-Informed Precision Dosing.The AAPS journal · 2026Article
- Deciphering the Combined Effects of Hydroxysafflor Yellow A and Calycosin Through Coupled PK-PD Modeling.Biology · 2026Article
- Application of Population-Based Meta-Heuristic Algorithms for Robust Initialization in Mechanistic Pharmacometric Modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Multi-objective optimization in population pharmacokinetic model selection and optimization: application of NSGA-II in pyDarwin.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Article
- Rising Role of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Pharmacometrics and Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatrics.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Pirana and Integrated PMX Tools, a Workbench for NONMEM, NLME, pyDarwin, and RsNLME.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- A machine learning approach to population pharmacokinetic modelling automation.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- AI In Action: Redefining Drug Discovery and Development.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forward addition/backward elimination (FABE) has been the standard for population pharmacokinetic model selection (PPK) since NONMEM® was introduced. We investigated five machine learning (ML) algorithms (Genetic algorithm [GA], Gaussian process [GP], random forest [RF], gradient boosted random tree [GBRT], and particle swarm optimization [PSO]) as alternatives to FABE. These algorithms were applied to PPK model selection with a focus on comparing the efficiency and robustness of each of them. All machine learning algorithms included the combination of ML algorithms with a local downhill search. The local downhill search consisted of systematically changing one or two "features" at a time (a one-bit or a two-bit local search), alternating with the ML methods. An exhaustive search (all possible combinations of model features, N = 1,572,864 models) was the gold standard for robustness, and the number of models examined leading prior to identification of the final model was the metric for efficiency.All algorithms identified the optimal model when combined with the two-bit local downhill search. GA, RF, GBRT, and GP identified the optimal model with only a one-bit local search. PSO required the two-bit local downhill search. In our analysis, GP was the most efficient algorithm as measured by the number of models examined prior to finding the optimal (495 models), and PSO exhibited the least efficiency, requiring 1710 unique models before finding the best solution. Additionally, GP was also the algorithm that needed the longest elapsed time of 2975.6 min, in comparison with GA, which only required 321.8 min.
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.