ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Visual predictive check of longitudinal models and dropout.
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 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.
- Regimen-stratified Bayesian model-based meta-analysis of targeted biologics in generalised myasthenia gravis: efficacy comparison, mechanism-level class contrast, and endpoint sensitivity with model-informed trial design.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Novel Drug-Disease Modeling Framework for Oncology Benefit-Risk Evaluation: Application to Tusamitamab Ravtansine.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual predictive checks (VPC) are commonly used to evaluate pharmacometrics models. However their performance may be hampered if patients with worse outcomes drop out earlier, as often occurs in clinical trials, especially in oncology. While methods accounting for dropouts have appeared in literature, they vary in assumptions, flexibility, and performance, and the differences between them are not widely understood. This manuscript aims to elucidate which methods can be used to handle VPC with dropout and when, along with a more informative VPC approach using confidence intervals. Additionally, we propose constructing the confidence interval based on the observed data instead of the simulated data. The theoretical framework for incorporating dropout in VPCs is developed and applied to propose two approaches: full and conditional. The full approach is implemented using a parametric time-to-event model, while the conditional approach is implemented using both parametric and Cox proportional-hazard (CPH) models. The practical performances of these approaches are illustrated with an application to the tumor growth dynamics (TGD) modeling of data from two cancer clinical trials of nivolumab and docetaxel, where patients were followed until disease progression. The dataset consisted of 3504 tumor size measurements from 855 subjects, which were described by a TGD model. The dropout of subjects was described by a Weibull or CPH model. Simulated datasets were also used to further illustrate the properties of the VPC methods. The results showed that the more familiar full approach might not provide meaningful improvement for TGD model evaluation over the naive approach of not adjusting for dropout, and could be outperformed by the conditional approach using either the Weibull model or the Cox proportional hazard model. Overall, including confidence intervals in VPC should improve interpretation, the conditional approach was shown to be more generally applicable when dropout occurs, and the nonparametric approach could provide additional robustness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39154319What 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.