Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis.

AAPS PharmSci Pub Date : 2002-01-01 DOI:10.1208/ps040427
Ulrika Wählby, E Niclas Jonsson, Mats O Karlsson
{"title":"Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis.","authors":"Ulrika Wählby,&nbsp;E Niclas Jonsson,&nbsp;Mats O Karlsson","doi":"10.1208/ps040427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare 2 stepwise covariate model-building strategies, frequently used in the analysis of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) data using nonlinear mixed-effects models, with respect to included covariates and predictive performance. In addition, the effects of stepwise regression on the estimated covariate coefficients were assessed. Using simulated and real PK data, covariate models were built applying (1) stepwise generalized additive models (GAM) for identifying potential covariates, followed by backward elimination in the computer program NONMEM, and (2) stepwise forward inclusion and backward elimination in NONMEM. Different versions of these procedures were tried (eg, treating different study occasions as separate individuals in the GAM, or fixing a part of the parameters when the NONMEM procedure was used). The final covariate models were compared, including their ability to predict a separate data set or their performance in cross-validation. The bias in the estimated coefficients (selection bias) was assessed. The model-building procedures performed similarly in the data sets explored. No major differences in the resulting covariate models were seen, and the predictive performances overlapped. Therefore, the choice of model-building procedure in these examples could be based on other aspects such as analyst- and computer-time efficiency. There was a tendency to selection bias in the estimates, although this was small relative to the overall variability in the estimates. The predictive performances of the stepwise models were also reasonably good. Thus, selection bias seems to be a minor problem in this typical PK covariate analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":6918,"journal":{"name":"AAPS PharmSci","volume":"4 4","pages":"E27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1208/ps040427","citationCount":"210","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS PharmSci","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/ps040427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 210

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare 2 stepwise covariate model-building strategies, frequently used in the analysis of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) data using nonlinear mixed-effects models, with respect to included covariates and predictive performance. In addition, the effects of stepwise regression on the estimated covariate coefficients were assessed. Using simulated and real PK data, covariate models were built applying (1) stepwise generalized additive models (GAM) for identifying potential covariates, followed by backward elimination in the computer program NONMEM, and (2) stepwise forward inclusion and backward elimination in NONMEM. Different versions of these procedures were tried (eg, treating different study occasions as separate individuals in the GAM, or fixing a part of the parameters when the NONMEM procedure was used). The final covariate models were compared, including their ability to predict a separate data set or their performance in cross-validation. The bias in the estimated coefficients (selection bias) was assessed. The model-building procedures performed similarly in the data sets explored. No major differences in the resulting covariate models were seen, and the predictive performances overlapped. Therefore, the choice of model-building procedure in these examples could be based on other aspects such as analyst- and computer-time efficiency. There was a tendency to selection bias in the estimates, although this was small relative to the overall variability in the estimates. The predictive performances of the stepwise models were also reasonably good. Thus, selection bias seems to be a minor problem in this typical PK covariate analysis.

群体药代动力学-药效学分析中逐步协变量模型构建策略的比较。
本研究的目的是比较使用非线性混合效应模型分析药代动力学-药效学(PK-PD)数据时常用的两种逐步协变量模型构建策略,包括协变量和预测性能。此外,还评估了逐步回归对估计协变量系数的影响。利用模拟和真实PK数据,采用(1)逐步广义加性模型(GAM)识别潜在协变量,然后在计算机程序NONMEM中进行反向消除,(2)在NONMEM中逐步向前包含和向后消除,建立协变量模型。我们尝试了这些程序的不同版本(例如,在GAM中将不同的研究场合视为单独的个体,或者在使用NONMEM程序时固定部分参数)。最后的协变量模型进行了比较,包括它们预测单独数据集的能力或它们在交叉验证中的表现。评估估计系数的偏倚(选择偏倚)。模型构建过程在所探索的数据集中执行相似。所得到的协变量模型没有重大差异,预测性能重叠。因此,在这些示例中模型构建过程的选择可以基于其他方面,例如分析师和计算机时间效率。在估计中有一种选择偏差的倾向,尽管相对于估计的总体变异性来说,这是很小的。逐步模型的预测性能也相当好。因此,在这个典型的PK协变量分析中,选择偏差似乎是一个小问题。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信