ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2026
Comparing the Predictive Performance of Machine Learning Models with a Newly Developed Population Pharmacokinetic Model for Busulfan in Paediatric Patients.
Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesBusulfan, used in conditioning regimens prior to haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, has a narrow therapeutic index; therefore, due to pharmacokinetic variability, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is employed to ensure drug exposure levels associated with optimal clinical outcomes. This study aimed to facilitate dose adjustment and potentially reduce the number of samples required for TDM in clinical practice.
methodsPopulation pharmacokinetic (popPK) and machine learning (ML) models (Random Forest and XGBoost) were developed using a local, retrospective, extensive-sampling dataset of 67 children (637 observations, Denmark) and externally evaluated using prediction error (PE) on a TDM dataset from another centre with 171 children (1871 observations, Netherlands). Limited sampling schedules were evaluated for both methods.
resultsA one-compartment model was the best data fit, showing time-varying clearance decreases of 10.4% and 13% on Days 2 and 3, respectively, compared to Day 1. The popPK, Random Forest, and XGBoost models performed well on the external dataset for concentration prediction, with median PE ranging from -4.82 to -7.44%, median absolute PE of approximately 15%, and approximately 80% of data predicted within ±30% of the PE. Sampling strategies at 0, 0.5, 1, 4 h or 0, 1, 2, 4 h post-infusion adequately predicted busulfan plasma concentration and exposure using the popPK model.
conclusionsA new popPK model was developed to support individualised dose adjustments in children using fewer blood samples. Both Random Forest and XGBoost could predict busulfan's plasma concentration with performance like that of the popPK model (population prediction). However, a larger dataset is needed for ML methods to describe a complete pharmacokinetic profile.
Identifiers
42773369What 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.