ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
Implementing a Bayesian approach using Stan with Torsten: Population pharmacokinetics analysis of somatrogon.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2025. 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.
- Implementing a Bayesian approach using Stan with Torsten: Population pharmacokinetics analysis of somatrogon.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fully Bayesian approaches are not commonly implemented for population pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling. In this paper, we evaluate the use of Stan with R and Torsten for population PK modeling of somatrogon, a recombinant long-acting growth hormone approved for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency. As a software for Bayesian inference, Stan provides an easy way to conduct MCMC sampling for a wide range of models with efficient sampling algorithms, and there are several diagnostic tools to evaluate the MCMC convergence and other potential issues. Three different sets of priors were evaluated for estimation and prediction: a weakly informative uniform set, a moderately informative set, and a very informative set of priors. All three prior sets showed good performance and all chains mixed well. There were some minor differences in the final parameter posterior distributions while implementing different prior sets, but the posterior predictions covered the observations nicely, not only for the individuals included in posterior sampling but also for new individuals. The impact of a centered versus non-centered parameterization were evaluated, with the non-centered approach improving the estimation time, but it was still computationally intensive. Computational resources had the biggest impact on sampling time. Stan took approximately 2.5 h total for the MCMC sampling on a high-performance computing platform (6 cores) and may be reduced further with additional computational resources. The model and comparisons presented show that with adequate computational resources, the Bayesian approaches using Stan and Torsten are useful for population PK analysis, especially for the analysis of special populations, small sample datasets, and when complex model structures are needed.
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.