Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38967731›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024

Likelihood comparisons in bounded outcome score analysis must be internally consistent.

Chuanpu Hu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Chuanpu HuBristol Myers Squibb, 3551 Lawrenceville Rd, Lawrence Township, NJ, 08540, USA. chuanpu.hu@bms.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trial endpoints are often bounded outcome scores (BOS), which are variables having restricted values within finite intervals. Common analysis approaches may treat the data as continuous, categorical, or a mixture of both. The appearance of BOS data being simultaneously continuous and categorical easily leads to confusions in pharmacometrics regarding the appropriate domain for model evaluation and the circumstances under which data likelihoods can be compared. This commentary aims to clarify these fundamental issues and facilitate appropriate pharmacometric analyses.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEndpoint DeterminationHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, StatisticalDiscrete variableDistributionInformation criterionModel selection, zero-inflated

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.