ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2025
Subgroup-based model selection to improve the prediction of vancomycin concentrations.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individualized dosing of vancomycin is recommended, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) being the preferred method to improve efficacy and limit toxicity. However, its implementation poses challenges, including model selection and initiation dose determination. We developed a model selection tool (MST) and evaluated its potential to improve concentration prediction precision and reduce bias. Retrospective data from adult intensive care unit patients receiving intravenous vancomycin were collected and divided into training and validation data sets. Population predictions from published one-compartment models were computed, and the universally best-performing model (UBM) was selected. A genetic algorithm was used to create an MST. The ability to forecast the third concentration based on previous concentrations was evaluated. A total of 148 vancomycin treatment episodes were included in training and 67 in the validation data set. The MST showed 12% and 6% improved precision compared to the UBM in training and validation data sets, respectively (mean absolute percentage prediction error [mean PAPE] 22.8% vs 26.0% and 28.4% vs 30.2%). The UBM exhibited lower bias in both training and validation data sets (mean percentage prediction error [mean PPE] 5.8% vs 4.7% and -2.8% vs -1.5%, respectively). The MST showed improved performance in predicting the third concentration based on previous concentrations. In both data sets, accuracy was the best/highest when two prior measured concentrations were used (mean PAPE and PPE 17.0% and -3.0% in training and 18.9% and -1.0% in validation data set). Overall, the MST has the potential to enhance vancomycin dosing accuracy from the first dose and simplify model selection, facilitating the utilization of MIPD in clinical practice.
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.