Correction to “Comparing Scientific Machine Learning With Population Pharmacokinetic and Classical Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Drug Concentrations”
{"title":"Correction to “Comparing Scientific Machine Learning With Population Pharmacokinetic and Classical Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Drug Concentrations”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/psp4.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>\n <span>Valderrama, D.</span>, <span>Teplytska, O.</span>, <span>Koltermann, L.M.</span>, <span>Trunz, E.</span>, <span>Schmulenson, E.</span>, <span>Fritsch, A.</span>, <span>Jaehde, U.</span> and <span>Fröhlich, H.</span> (<span>2025</span>), <span>Comparing Scientific Machine Learning With Population Pharmacokinetic and Classical Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Drug Concentrations</span>. <i>CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol.</i> https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.13313\n </p><p>In the published version of the above article, we noticed an inaccuracy in Figures 2 and 3 (the goodness-of-fit plots) and the corresponding Tables 3 and S3.</p><p>Goodness-of-fit plots illustrate how well a model fits the data by plotting individual predictions (IPRED) (or just predictions) against the actual observations. Upon further discussion, we realized that the IPRED shown for the Multimodal Scientific Machine Learning model were derived from maximum-a posteriori (MAP) individual parameter estimation and those shown for the population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models were pure simulations, that did not make use of the concentrations in the test data.</p><p>Although we stated this truthfully in our Methods section, we now realize that this comparison can be misleading. We have therefore replaced the goodness-of-fit plots for the PopPK model with more appropriate plots representing IPRED after MAP estimation and added the corresponding metrics to our Tables 3 and S3.</p><p>The conclusions of our article are not affected by this correction.</p>","PeriodicalId":10774,"journal":{"name":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","volume":"14 4","pages":"807-811"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/psp4.70024","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/psp4.70024","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
Valderrama, D., Teplytska, O., Koltermann, L.M., Trunz, E., Schmulenson, E., Fritsch, A., Jaehde, U. and Fröhlich, H. (2025), Comparing Scientific Machine Learning With Population Pharmacokinetic and Classical Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Drug Concentrations. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.13313
In the published version of the above article, we noticed an inaccuracy in Figures 2 and 3 (the goodness-of-fit plots) and the corresponding Tables 3 and S3.
Goodness-of-fit plots illustrate how well a model fits the data by plotting individual predictions (IPRED) (or just predictions) against the actual observations. Upon further discussion, we realized that the IPRED shown for the Multimodal Scientific Machine Learning model were derived from maximum-a posteriori (MAP) individual parameter estimation and those shown for the population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models were pure simulations, that did not make use of the concentrations in the test data.
Although we stated this truthfully in our Methods section, we now realize that this comparison can be misleading. We have therefore replaced the goodness-of-fit plots for the PopPK model with more appropriate plots representing IPRED after MAP estimation and added the corresponding metrics to our Tables 3 and S3.
The conclusions of our article are not affected by this correction.
Valderrama, D, Teplytska, O., Koltermann, l.m., Trunz, E., Schmulenson, E., Fritsch, A., Jaehde, U.和Fröhlich, H.(2025),科学机器学习与群体药代动力学和经典机器学习方法预测药物浓度的比较。CPT药物计量学系统https://doi.org/10.1002/psp4.13313在上述文章的发布版本中,我们注意到图2和3(拟合优度图)以及相应的表3和表S3中有一个不准确的地方。拟合优度图通过绘制个体预测(IPRED)(或仅仅是预测)与实际观察结果的对比,来说明模型与数据的拟合程度。经过进一步讨论,我们意识到多模态科学机器学习模型显示的IPRED来自最大后验(MAP)个体参数估计,而群体药代动力学(PopPK)模型显示的IPRED是纯粹的模拟,没有利用测试数据中的浓度。虽然我们在方法部分如实说明了这一点,但我们现在意识到这种比较可能会产生误导。因此,我们将PopPK模型的拟合优度图替换为表示MAP估计后的IPRED的更合适的图,并将相应的指标添加到表3和S3中。我们文章的结论不受这次更正的影响。