| Title |
Guidelines for the Quality Control of Population Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Analyses: an Industry Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AAPS Journal, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1208/s12248-012-9387-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. L. Bonate, A. Strougo, A. Desai, M. Roy, A. Yassen, J. S. van der Walt, A. Kaibara, S. Tannenbaum |
| Abstract |
Quality population modeling and simulation analyses and reports are something every modeler desires. However, little attention in the literature has been paid to what constitutes quality regarding population analyses. Very rarely do published manuscripts contain any statement about quality assurance of the modeling results contained therein. The purpose of this manuscript is to present guidelines for the quality assurance of population analyses, particularly with regards to the use of NONMEM from an industrial perspective. Quality guidelines are developed for the NONMEM installation itself, NONMEM data sets, control streams, output listings, output data files and resultant post-processing, reporting of results, and the review processes. These guidelines were developed to be thorough yet practical, though are not meant to be completely comprehensive. It is our desire to ensure that what is reported accurately reflects the collected data, the modeling process, and model outputs for a modeling project. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 21% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,000,288
of 24,375,780 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#383
of 1,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,914
of 167,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,375,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,362 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 167,436 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.