SynthesisCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025
Covariate Model Selection Approaches for Population Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review of Existing Methods, From SCM to AI.
Synthesis 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling to evaluate favipiravir in combination with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Variance-Consistent Covariate Modeling from Posterior Summaries in Population Pharmacokinetics.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- A Combined Experimental and Predictive Modeling Study of Diltiazem Release From Natural Polymer Microcapsules in Different Media.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- PMX-CovEval: A Framework Including a Simulated Pharmacokinetic Database for Covariate Model Building Methods Benchmarking.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Assessing Covariate Clinical Relevance in High-Dimensional PK Analysis: A Comparison of SCM+, FFEM, and FREM Approaches.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- SCOUT: An Exploratory Approach to Scouting Dose-Relevant Covariates.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Innovative applications of artificial intelligence technology in pharmacometrics.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Learning Covariate Relations in Disease Progression Models Using Symbolic Neural Networks.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- The Regularized Horseshoe for Covariate Selection Improves Convenience and Predictive Performance in Population PK/PD Models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Stochastic Gates for Covariate Selection in Population Pharmacokinetics Modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Pharmacometrics in the Age of Large Language Models: A Vision of the Future.Pharmaceutics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing number of covariate modeling methods have been proposed in the field of popPK modeling, but limited information exists on how they all compare. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of all popPK covariate modeling methods, focusing on assessing the existing knowledge on their performances. For each method of each article included in this review, evaluation setting, performance metrics along with their associated values, and relative computational times were reported when available. Evaluation settings report was done for uncertainty assessment of communicated results. Results showed that EBEs-based ML methods stood out as the best covariate selection methods. AALASSO, a hybrid genetic algorithm, FREM with a clinical significance criterion and SCM+ with stagewise filtering were the best covariate model selection techniques-AALASSO being the very best one. Results also showed a lack of consensus on how to benchmark simulated datasets of different scenarios when evaluating method performances, but also on which metrics to use for method evaluation. We propose to systematically report TPR (sensitivity), FPR (Type I error), FNR (Type II error), TNR (specificity), covariate parameter error bias (MPE) and precision (RMSE), clinical relevance, and model fitness by means of BIC, concentration prediction error bias (MPE), and precision (RMSE) of new proposed methods and compare them with SCM. We propose to systematically combine covariate selection techniques to SCM or FFEM to allow for comparison with SCM. We also highlight the need for an open-source benchmark of simulated datasets on a representative set of scenarios.
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.