↓ Skip to main content

Preconditioning of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models for Stabilisation of Variance-Covariance Matrix Computations

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, February 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

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Preconditioning of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models for Stabilisation of Variance-Covariance Matrix Computations
Published in
The AAPS Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9866-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasunori Aoki, Rikard Nordgren, Andrew C. Hooker

Abstract

As the importance of pharmacometric analysis increases, more and more complex mathematical models are introduced and computational error resulting from computational instability starts to become a bottleneck in the analysis. We propose a preconditioning method for non-linear mixed effects models used in pharmacometric analyses to stabilise the computation of the variance-covariance matrix. Roughly speaking, the method reparameterises the model with a linear combination of the original model parameters so that the Hessian matrix of the likelihood of the reparameterised model becomes close to an identity matrix. This approach will reduce the influence of computational error, for example rounding error, to the final computational result. We present numerical experiments demonstrating that the stabilisation of the computation using the proposed method can recover failed variance-covariance matrix computations, and reveal non-identifiability of the model parameters.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Mathematics 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,251,396
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#788
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,768
of 398,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#22
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 398,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.