ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
The Visual Predictive Check and Real-World Data.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The visual predictive check (VPC) is a standard tool for assessing pharmacometric model suitability, producing visualizations that compare observed data with simulated data such that both model structure and model variability terms can be assessed. However, real-world data commonly reflect clinical decision-making that adapts therapy in response to patient data. As a result, VPCs constructed from such data may display apparent model misspecification, even when models are well-specified. To illustrate possible confounders, four common real-world therapy adaptation scenarios were simulated: (1) varying dose amount with constant interval, (2) varying dosing interval with constant dose amount, (3) patient dropout after identification of a suitable maintenance dose, and (4) variability in sample timing based on individual pharmacokinetic parameter estimates. For all scenarios, simulated observations were generated using the same model used to produce the VPC simulations, ensuring that the model was unbiased. When only the dose amount varied, the prediction-corrected VPC (pcVPC) appropriately indicated a well-specified model. In all other cases, both VPC and pcVPC erroneously suggested a misspecified model. These simulated results, together with our broader experience with complex real-world data, demonstrate that VPCs can be misleading when applied to real-world data if dosing interval, sample timing, or sample frequency varies in response to measured drug concentrations. We propose these four scenarios as benchmarks for evaluating the robustness of current and future model diagnostics to real-world data characteristics.
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.