↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation and Comparison of Simple Multiple Model, Richer Data Multiple Model, and Sequential Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) Bayesian Analyses of Gentamicin and Vancomycin Data Collected From…

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation and Comparison of Simple Multiple Model, Richer Data Multiple Model, and Sequential Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) Bayesian Analyses of Gentamicin and Vancomycin Data Collected From Patients Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery
Published in
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, February 2008
DOI 10.1097/ftd.0b013e318161a38c
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iona Macdonald, Christine E Staatz, Roger W Jelliffe, Alison H Thomson

Abstract

This study compared the abilities of three Bayesian algorithms-simple multiple model (SMM) using a single creatinine measurement; richer data multiple model (RMM) using all creatinine measurements; and the sequential interacting multiple model (IMM)-to describe gentamicin and vancomycin concentration-time data from patients within a cardiothoracic surgery unit who had variable renal function. All algorithms start with multiple sets of discrete parameter support points obtained from nonparametric population modeling. The SMM and RMM Bayesian algorithms then estimate their Bayesian posterior probabilities by conventionally assuming that the estimated parameter distributions are fixed and unchanging throughout the period of data analysis. In contrast, the IMM sequential Bayesian algorithm permits parameter estimates to jump from one population model support point to another, as new data are analyzed, if the probability of a different support point fitting the more recent data is more likely. Several initial IMM jump probability settings were examined-0.0001%, 0.1%, 3%, and 10%-and a probability range of 0.0001% to 50%. The data sets comprised 550 gentamicin concentration measurements from 135 patients and 555 vancomycin concentration measurements from 139 patients. The SMM algorithm performed poorly with both antibiotics. Improved precision was obtained with the RMM algorithm. However, the IMM algorithm fitted the data with the highest precision. A 3% jump probability gave the best estimates. In contrast, the IMM 0.0001% to 50% range setting performed poorly, especially for vancomycin. In summary, the IMM algorithm described and tracked drug concentration data well in these clinically unstable patients. Further investigation of this new approach in routine clinical care and optimal dosage design is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 25%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 25%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Design 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 May 2012.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
#1,318
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,155
of 172,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 172,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.