↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced Method for Diagnosing Pharmacometric Models: Random Sampling from Conditional Distributions

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmaceutical Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Enhanced Method for Diagnosing Pharmacometric Models: Random Sampling from Conditional Distributions
Published in
Pharmaceutical Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11095-016-2020-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Lavielle, Benjamin Ribba

Abstract

For nonlinear mixed-effects pharmacometric models, diagnostic approaches often rely on individual parameters, also called empirical Bayes estimates (EBEs), estimated through maximizing conditional distributions. When individual data are sparse, the distribution of EBEs can "shrink" towards the same population value, and as a direct consequence, resulting diagnostics can be misleading. Instead of maximizing each individual conditional distribution of individual parameters, we propose to randomly sample them in order to obtain values better spread out over the marginal distribution of individual parameters. We evaluated, through diagnostic plots and statistical tests, hypothesis related to the distribution of the individual parameters and show that the proposed method leads to more reliable results than using the EBEs. In particular, diagnostic plots are more meaningful, the rate of type I error is correctly controlled and its power increases when the degree of misspecification increases. An application to the warfarin pharmacokinetic data confirms the interest of the approach for practical applications. The proposed method should be implemented to complement EBEs-based approach for increasing the performance of model diagnosis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 36%
Mathematics 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2022.
All research outputs
#8,408,127
of 25,118,194 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Research
#1,121
of 2,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,391
of 343,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Research
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,118,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.