ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Mixed effect estimation in deep compartment models: Variational methods outperform first-order approximations.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Redefining Parameter Estimation and Covariate Selection via Variational Autoencoders: One Run Is All You Need.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work focusses on extending the deep compartment model (DCM) framework to the estimation of mixed-effects. By introducing random effects, model predictions can be personalized based on drug measurements, enabling the testing of different treatment schedules on an individual basis. The performance of classical first-order (FO and FOCE) and machine learning based variational inference (VI) algorithms were compared in a simulation study. In VI, posterior distributions of the random variables are approximated using variational distributions whose parameters can be directly optimized. We found that variational approximations estimated using the path derivative gradient estimator version of VI were highly accurate. Models fit on the simulated data set using the FO and VI objective functions gave similar results, with accurate predictions of both the population parameters and covariate effects. Contrastingly, models fit using FOCE depicted erratic behaviour during optimization, and resulting parameter estimates were inaccurate. Finally, we compared the performance of the methods on two real-world data sets of haemophilia A patients who received standard half-life factor VIII concentrates during prophylactic and perioperative settings. Again, models fit using FO and VI depicted similar results, although some models fit using FO presented divergent results. Again, models fit using FOCE were unstable. In conclusion, we show that mixed-effects estimation using the DCM is feasible. VI performs conditional estimation, which might lead to more accurate results in more complex models compared to the FO method.
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.