Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42307836›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2026

Comparing heavy-tailed residual error models for outlier handling in population PK modeling.

Yiming Cheng, Yan Li

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yiming ChengClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Summit, NJ, USA.
Yan LiClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Summit, NJ, USA. Yan.Li@bms.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliable population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) estimation is often compromised by outliers under Gaussian error models. While post hoc filtering using conditional weighted residuals (CWRES) is common, this approach is often insensitive due to model "masking" from variance inflation.

methodsWe implemented a one-compartment model in Monolix using a custom likelihood workaround to benchmark four distributions: Normal, Laplace, Generalized Error Distribution (GED), and Student's t. We assessed CWRES sensitivity under extreme contamination and compared estimation performance using theoretical tail-behavior analysis, controlled simulation studies spanning multiple contamination severities, and a real-world caffeine PK case study with influential terminal-phase deviations.

resultsSimulations revealed that CWRES-based diagnostics are unreliable; extreme outliers frequently produced |CWRES| < 6 because the Normal model inflated residual variance, masking the contamination. Exponential-tail models (Laplace, GED) improved robustness for moderate outliers but failed under extreme deviations due to insufficiently heavy tails. Conversely, the Student's t model, utilizing power-law tail behavior, maintained stable and minimally biased structural parameter estimates across the contamination settings examined. These patterns were confirmed in the caffeine case study.

conclusionsReliance on CWRES-driven residual screening alone is methodologically fragile. Among the models evaluated, exponential-tail distributions are insufficient for extreme outliers, whereas the Student's t distribution provided the most consistent stability across the contamination settings examined here and showed the most robust overall performance among the residual-error models evaluated when influential outliers were present.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalModels, StatisticalPharmacokineticsCaffeineComputer SimulationHumansLikelihood FunctionsCaffeineGeneralized error distribution (GED)LaplaceNormalOutliersStudent’s t distribution

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.