Covariate Model Selection Approaches for Population Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review of Existing Methods, From SCM to AI.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1002/psp4.13306
Mélanie Karlsen, Sonia Khier, David Fabre, David Marchionni, Jérôme Azé, Sandra Bringay, Pascal Poncelet, Elisa Calvier
{"title":"Covariate Model Selection Approaches for Population Pharmacokinetics: A Systematic Review of Existing Methods, From SCM to AI.","authors":"Mélanie Karlsen, Sonia Khier, David Fabre, David Marchionni, Jérôme Azé, Sandra Bringay, Pascal Poncelet, Elisa Calvier","doi":"10.1002/psp4.13306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing number of covariate modeling methods have been proposed in the field of popPK modeling, but limited information exists on how they all compare. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of all popPK covariate modeling methods, focusing on assessing the existing knowledge on their performances. For each method of each article included in this review, evaluation setting, performance metrics along with their associated values, and relative computational times were reported when available. Evaluation settings report was done for uncertainty assessment of communicated results. Results showed that EBEs-based ML methods stood out as the best covariate selection methods. AALASSO, a hybrid genetic algorithm, FREM with a clinical significance criterion and SCM+ with stagewise filtering were the best covariate model selection techniques-AALASSO being the very best one. Results also showed a lack of consensus on how to benchmark simulated datasets of different scenarios when evaluating method performances, but also on which metrics to use for method evaluation. We propose to systematically report TPR (sensitivity), FPR (Type I error), FNR (Type II error), TNR (specificity), covariate parameter error bias (MPE) and precision (RMSE), clinical relevance, and model fitness by means of BIC, concentration prediction error bias (MPE), and precision (RMSE) of new proposed methods and compare them with SCM. We propose to systematically combine covariate selection techniques to SCM or FFEM to allow for comparison with SCM. We also highlight the need for an open-source benchmark of simulated datasets on a representative set of scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":10774,"journal":{"name":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.13306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A growing number of covariate modeling methods have been proposed in the field of popPK modeling, but limited information exists on how they all compare. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of all popPK covariate modeling methods, focusing on assessing the existing knowledge on their performances. For each method of each article included in this review, evaluation setting, performance metrics along with their associated values, and relative computational times were reported when available. Evaluation settings report was done for uncertainty assessment of communicated results. Results showed that EBEs-based ML methods stood out as the best covariate selection methods. AALASSO, a hybrid genetic algorithm, FREM with a clinical significance criterion and SCM+ with stagewise filtering were the best covariate model selection techniques-AALASSO being the very best one. Results also showed a lack of consensus on how to benchmark simulated datasets of different scenarios when evaluating method performances, but also on which metrics to use for method evaluation. We propose to systematically report TPR (sensitivity), FPR (Type I error), FNR (Type II error), TNR (specificity), covariate parameter error bias (MPE) and precision (RMSE), clinical relevance, and model fitness by means of BIC, concentration prediction error bias (MPE), and precision (RMSE) of new proposed methods and compare them with SCM. We propose to systematically combine covariate selection techniques to SCM or FFEM to allow for comparison with SCM. We also highlight the need for an open-source benchmark of simulated datasets on a representative set of scenarios.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
群体药代动力学的协变量模型选择方法:对现有方法的系统回顾,从SCM到AI。
在popPK建模领域,越来越多的协变量建模方法被提出,但关于它们如何进行比较的信息有限。本研究的目的是对所有popPK协变量建模方法进行系统回顾,重点是评估现有知识对其性能的影响。对于本文中包含的每篇文章的每种方法,在可用时报告了评估设置、性能指标及其相关值和相对计算时间。对沟通结果的不确定度进行评估设置报告。结果表明,基于ebes的ML方法是最佳的协变量选择方法。混合遗传算法AALASSO、临床意义标准的FREM和分阶段滤波的SCM+是最佳的协变量模型选择技术,其中AALASSO是最好的。结果还表明,在评估方法性能时,如何对不同场景的模拟数据集进行基准测试,以及使用哪些指标进行方法评估,都缺乏共识。我们建议通过BIC、浓度预测误差偏差(MPE)和精度(RMSE)系统地报告新方法的TPR(敏感性)、FPR(ⅰ型误差)、FNR(ⅱ型误差)、TNR(特异性)、协变量参数误差偏差(MPE)和精度(RMSE)、临床相关性和模型适应度,并将其与SCM进行比较。我们建议系统地将协变量选择技术与SCM或FFEM结合起来,以便与SCM进行比较。我们还强调需要在一组具有代表性的场景上对模拟数据集进行开源基准测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
11.40%
发文量
146
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information PBPK-Led Assessment of Antimalarial Drug Concentrations in Breastmilk: A Strategy for Optimal Use of Prediction Methods to Guide Decision Making in an Understudied Population. Elucidating Contributions of Drug Transporters/Enzyme to Nonlinear Pharmacokinetics of Grazoprevir by PBPK Modeling With a Cluster Gauss-Newton Method. Comparing Scientific Machine Learning With Population Pharmacokinetic and Classical Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Drug Concentrations. Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1