↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Model-Misspecification on Model Based Personalised Dosing

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
The Impact of Model-Misspecification on Model Based Personalised Dosing
Published in
The AAPS Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9943-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. J. McDougall, Jennifer Martin, E. Geoffrey Playford, Bruce Green

Abstract

Model Based Personalised Dosing (MBPD) requires a population pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacodynamic model to determine the optimal dose of medication for an individual. Often several models are published, and the decision of which model is implemented in MBPD may have a large impact on its clinical utility. As quoted by Box, "all models are wrong, the practical question is how wrong can they be and still be useful". Voriconzole, a triazole antifungal and the example used in this manuscript, currently has nine population PK models published. To assess the impact of model-misspecification on MBPD, five structurally mis-specified models for voriconazole were developed. Intensive plasma concentrations were simulated for 100 virtual subjects. The dose adjustments required to reach a target exposure were determined by using the empirical Bayes estimates of the PK parameters under each of the mis-specified models. The predicted plasma concentrations and the probability of clinical outcomes, upon following the dose recommendations, were determined. Models that did not contain non-linear clearance performed poorly, with a median dose recommendation 155-310 mg higher than appropriate doses, when only one plasma concentration was available. Removal of body weight and CYP2C9 genotype as covariates had no clinically significant impact on outcomes. In summary, the removal of important structural components, such as non-linear clearance in the case of voriconazole, had a large impact on the clinical utility of MBPD. The removal of patient covariates, even highly influential covariates such as CYP2C9 genotype for voriconazole, had no clinical impact.

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 %
United States 1 6%
Australia 1 6%
Unknown 14 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 38%
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Computer Science 3 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Mathematics 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
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 22 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,988
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,101
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,964
of 352,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#24
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 352,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.