ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2026
Multi-objective optimization in population pharmacokinetic model selection and optimization: application of NSGA-II in pyDarwin.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2026. 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.
- Multi-objective optimization in population pharmacokinetic model selection and optimization: application of NSGA-II in pyDarwin.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of a "good" model usually involves a combination of objective and subjective criteria. Although many aspects of model quality can be expressed numerically, certain desirable characteristics remain difficult-or even impossible-to quantify precisely. Multi-objective optimization (MOO) provides a systematic way to handle this challenge by explicitly incorporating and balancing both objective (measurable) and subjective (judgment-based) considerations when choosing among candidate solutions. The generated Pareto front represents a set of non-dominated models where no single solution can be improved in one objective without sacrificing the performance in another objective. Using the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II), an implementation of MOO, we simultaneously considered objective function value and number of estimated parameters as competing criteria. Concentration measurements of 17-DMAG, quetiapine, clozapine and ziprasidone were applied to build population pharmacokinetic models through traditional stepwise search, machine learning based single-objective hybrid genetic algorithm (SOHGA) and MOO. Local downhill search with MOO was also assessed in this study. While both objectives improved, models with lower objective function value generally contained more estimated parameters. The number of non-dominated solutions for DMAG, ziprasidone, clozapine, and quetiapine was 17, 9, 9, and 13, respectively. The optimal model selected by SOHGA appeared on the Pareto front for DMAG, ziprasidone and clozapine datasets. Overall, MOO provides objective transparency to the cost of tradeoffs between competing model objectives, allowing researchers to better contextualize subjective criteria (e.g., biological plausibility, improvements in diagnostic plots) when aligning model selection with clinical context.
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.