将部分残差图作为基于模型的 Meta 分析中的综合模型诊断工具》(Partial Residual Plots as an Integrated Model Diagnostic Tool in Model-Based Meta-Analysis)。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
John Maringwa, Paul Matthias Diderichsen, Chandni Valiathan
{"title":"将部分残差图作为基于模型的 Meta 分析中的综合模型诊断工具》(Partial Residual Plots as an Integrated Model Diagnostic Tool in Model-Based Meta-Analysis)。","authors":"John Maringwa, Paul Matthias Diderichsen, Chandni Valiathan","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of partial residual plots (PRPs) was explored as a model diagnostic tool in Model-based Meta-Analysis (MBMA). Mathematical derivations illustrating the concepts were followed by an MBMA example using publicly available literature data of anti-depressive treatments with fluoxetine and venlafaxine. An E<sub>max</sub> dose-response model was identified for venlafaxine while a constant drug effect combining all dose levels vs. placebo was identified for fluoxetine. The larger the mean baseline Hamilton Depression Rating (HAMD) score, the larger the expected drug effect (P = 0.0122), based on the likelihood ratio test. Mean baseline HAMD score (range) was 25.4 (23.5, 29.4) and 20.8 (15, 26) while mean placebo change from baseline (range) was -9.02 (-12.2, -4.8) and - 6.22 (-10.9, -1.3) for venlafaxine and fluoxetine, respectively. Average baseline HAMD score appeared larger for venlafaxine compared to fluoxetine, albeit a wider range for fluoxetine. Placebo response seemed lower but also more variable in fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine studies. Observed data points tended to deviate from model predictions when the mean baseline HAMD and placebo response values associated with those data points differed substantially from the corresponding values used for the model prediction. Normalizing observed data addressed this, providing a \"like-to-like\" comparison with model predictions in PRP when assessing the effect of one covariate (dose) after normalizing for other covariates/effects (placebo response and mean baseline). PRPs provide a robust integrated diagnostic tool in MBMA that uses all data to show the correlation between response and any covariate while controlling for other covariates included in the model.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partial Residual Plots as an Integrated Model Diagnostic Tool in Model-Based Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"John Maringwa, Paul Matthias Diderichsen, Chandni Valiathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cpt.3418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of partial residual plots (PRPs) was explored as a model diagnostic tool in Model-based Meta-Analysis (MBMA). Mathematical derivations illustrating the concepts were followed by an MBMA example using publicly available literature data of anti-depressive treatments with fluoxetine and venlafaxine. An E<sub>max</sub> dose-response model was identified for venlafaxine while a constant drug effect combining all dose levels vs. placebo was identified for fluoxetine. The larger the mean baseline Hamilton Depression Rating (HAMD) score, the larger the expected drug effect (P = 0.0122), based on the likelihood ratio test. Mean baseline HAMD score (range) was 25.4 (23.5, 29.4) and 20.8 (15, 26) while mean placebo change from baseline (range) was -9.02 (-12.2, -4.8) and - 6.22 (-10.9, -1.3) for venlafaxine and fluoxetine, respectively. Average baseline HAMD score appeared larger for venlafaxine compared to fluoxetine, albeit a wider range for fluoxetine. Placebo response seemed lower but also more variable in fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine studies. Observed data points tended to deviate from model predictions when the mean baseline HAMD and placebo response values associated with those data points differed substantially from the corresponding values used for the model prediction. Normalizing observed data addressed this, providing a \\\"like-to-like\\\" comparison with model predictions in PRP when assessing the effect of one covariate (dose) after normalizing for other covariates/effects (placebo response and mean baseline). PRPs provide a robust integrated diagnostic tool in MBMA that uses all data to show the correlation between response and any covariate while controlling for other covariates included in the model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3418\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3418","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在基于模型的元分析(MBMA)中,部分残差图(PRP)作为一种模型诊断工具得到了探讨。在对概念进行数学推导之后,使用公开文献数据对氟西汀和文拉法辛的抗抑郁治疗进行了 MBMA 示例。为文拉法辛确定了一个最大剂量反应模型,而为氟西汀确定了一个结合所有剂量水平与安慰剂的恒定药物效应模型。根据似然比检验,平均基线汉密尔顿抑郁评分(HAMD)越高,预期药物效应越大(P = 0.0122)。文拉法辛和氟西汀的平均基线 HAMD 评分(范围)分别为 25.4(23.5,29.4)和 20.8(15,26),而安慰剂与基线相比的平均变化(范围)分别为-9.02(-12.2,-4.8)和-6.22(-10.9,-1.3)。与氟西汀相比,文拉法辛的平均基线HAMD评分似乎更高,尽管氟西汀的评分范围更广。与文拉法辛研究相比,氟西汀的安慰剂反应似乎更低,但变化也更大。当与数据点相关的 HAMD 和安慰剂反应平均基线值与模型预测所用的相应值相差很大时,观察数据点往往会偏离模型预测值。对观察到的数据进行归一化处理可解决这一问题,在对其他协变量/效应(安慰剂反应和平均基线)进行归一化处理后,在 PRP 中评估一个协变量(剂量)的效应时,可与模型预测进行 "相似 "比较。PRP 在 MBMA 中提供了一个强大的综合诊断工具,它使用所有数据显示响应与任何协变量之间的相关性,同时控制模型中包含的其他协变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Partial Residual Plots as an Integrated Model Diagnostic Tool in Model-Based Meta-Analysis.

The use of partial residual plots (PRPs) was explored as a model diagnostic tool in Model-based Meta-Analysis (MBMA). Mathematical derivations illustrating the concepts were followed by an MBMA example using publicly available literature data of anti-depressive treatments with fluoxetine and venlafaxine. An Emax dose-response model was identified for venlafaxine while a constant drug effect combining all dose levels vs. placebo was identified for fluoxetine. The larger the mean baseline Hamilton Depression Rating (HAMD) score, the larger the expected drug effect (P = 0.0122), based on the likelihood ratio test. Mean baseline HAMD score (range) was 25.4 (23.5, 29.4) and 20.8 (15, 26) while mean placebo change from baseline (range) was -9.02 (-12.2, -4.8) and - 6.22 (-10.9, -1.3) for venlafaxine and fluoxetine, respectively. Average baseline HAMD score appeared larger for venlafaxine compared to fluoxetine, albeit a wider range for fluoxetine. Placebo response seemed lower but also more variable in fluoxetine compared to venlafaxine studies. Observed data points tended to deviate from model predictions when the mean baseline HAMD and placebo response values associated with those data points differed substantially from the corresponding values used for the model prediction. Normalizing observed data addressed this, providing a "like-to-like" comparison with model predictions in PRP when assessing the effect of one covariate (dose) after normalizing for other covariates/effects (placebo response and mean baseline). PRPs provide a robust integrated diagnostic tool in MBMA that uses all data to show the correlation between response and any covariate while controlling for other covariates included in the model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
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