ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
The refinement of repeated exact time-to-event modeling: methodological refinements and implementation in NONMEM
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Parametric time-to-event (TTE) modeling is widely used in clinical trials to evaluate treatment response, patient prognosis, and drug-related adverse events (AEs). As follow-up assessments increasingly capture recurrent AEs, there is a growing need for analytical approaches that extend beyond traditional single-event frameworks. However, commonly used TTE models often assume independence between recurrent events, limiting their ability to represent inter-event dependence observed in real-world clinical data. Methods: We mathematically examined and reconstructed the existing NONMEM® (version 7.5) control code used for parametric repeated-event analyses and evaluated the statistical foundations of commonly applied parametric and nonparametric approaches, including Kaplan-Meier-based methods. Based on these analyses, we identified methodological gaps and proposed an improved probabilistic framework that more rigorously represents recurrent event dynamics while allowing for multiple dependent event occurrences. The proposed and existing methods were compared through simulation studies under diverse event-generation scenarios, and practical guidance for model selection was developed. Results: Three approaches were evaluated: two conventional parametric methods (methods 1, 2) and a newly proposed method (method 3). Overall, when the hazard function remained constant, all three methods produced similar results; however, clear differences in performance emerged depending on hazard dynamics and event density. When the hazard decreased gradually and events were relatively evenly distributed, method 2 demonstrated the closest alignment with nonparametric estimates, whereas when the hazard declined rapidly and events were concentrated in the early phase, method 3 showed a relatively better fit. In addition, because nonparametric estimators inherently involve uncertainty, discrepancies between parametric and nonparametric approaches do not necessarily indicate model misspecification, underscoring the need for careful interpretation in light of data characteristics and underlying hazard structures. Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of selecting analytical methods according to data characteristics and suggest that complementary use of both widely used and newly proposed methods can improve the accuracy of recurrent event modeling. The proposed guidelines are expected to facilitate more systematic and reliable interpretation of recurrent AE data frequently encountered in clinical trials and real-world clinical settings, ultimately contributing to more robust evaluations of drug efficacy and safety as well as optimization of dosing strategies.
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.