Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831409›Full record

SynthesisCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2025

Covariate Model Selection Approaches for Population Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review of Existing Methods, From SCM to AI.

Mélanie Karlsen, Sonia Khier, David Fabre, David Marchionni, Jérôme Azé, Sandra Bringay, Pascal Poncelet, Elisa Calvier

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. SCOUT: An Exploratory Approach to Scouting Dose-Relevant Covariates.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

8 authors.

Mélanie KarlsenLIRMM, Laboratory of Computer Science, Robotics and Microelectronics in Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0009-0002-8868-295X
Sonia KhierPharmacokinetics and Pharmacometrics Department, Faculty of Pharmaceutical and Biological Sciences, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-8461
David FabrePharmacokinetics Dynamics and Metabolism/Translational Medicine and Early Development, Sanofi R&D Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
David MarchionniPharmacokinetics Dynamics and Metabolism/Translational Medicine and Early Development, Sanofi R&D Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Jérôme AzéLIRMM, Laboratory of Computer Science, Robotics and Microelectronics in Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7372-729X
Sandra BringayLIRMM, Laboratory of Computer Science, Robotics and Microelectronics in Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2830-3666
Pascal PonceletLIRMM, Laboratory of Computer Science, Robotics and Microelectronics in Montpellier, CNRS, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8277-3490
Elisa CalvierPharmacokinetics Dynamics and Metabolism/Translational Medicine and Early Development, Sanofi R&D Montpellier, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3764-6249

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansartificial intelligencecovariate model buildingcovariate modelingcovariate screeningmachine learningpharmacometricspopulation pharmacokinetic

Identifiers

PMID39831409
PMCPMC12001260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.