ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Comparative performance of multiple predictive models constructed for budesonide nebulized formulation requirements.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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: Developing rational demand forecasting plans for National Centralized Volume-Based Procurement (NCVBP) pharmaceuticals is critical to ensuring patient access while avoiding drug inventory surplus, thereby facilitating refined hospital management and reducing operational costs. This study therefore compared the predictive performance of multiple models to identify an optimal approach for forecasting hospital demand for budesonide nebulized formulation. Methods: Using 48 months of actual utilization data (2022-2025) for budesonide nebulized formulation, a fifth-batch NCVBP product, we systematically evaluated the forecasting performance of 10 single models, 3 hybrid models, and 1 weighted ensemble model. Results: On the pediatric hospital dataset, the TBATS-XGB hybrid model achieved the best performance on the test set, yielding the lowest mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 12.43%, along with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 5486.0 and a mean absolute error (MAE) of 3659.8. Conclusion: The TBATS-XGB hybrid model can serve as a valuable reference for NCVBP drug quantity forecasting, addressing the limitations of conventional empirical estimation methods that often fail to capture structural changes and seasonal fluctuations in demand. Moreover, because it requires only historical usage data for deployment, this approach may be highly generalizable to hospital settings with limited data infrastructure.
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.