Case Study 3: Criticality of High-Quality Curve Fitting—“Getting a K” Isn’t as Simple as It May Seem
Methods in Molecular Biology, ISSN: 1940-6029, Vol: 2342, Page: 653-664
2021
- 1Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures1
- Readers1
Book Chapter Description
In this chapter, we illustrate the criticality of proper fitting of enzyme kinetic data. Simple techniques are provided to arrive at meaningful kinetic parameters, illustrated using an example, nonmonotonic data set. In the initial analysis of this data set, derived K and V parameters incorporated into PBPK models resulted in outcomes that did not adequately describe clinical data. This prompted a re-review of the in vitro data set and curve-fitting procedures. During this review, it was found that the 3-parameter model was fitted on data that was improperly unweighted. Reanalysis of the data using a weighted model returned a better fit and resulted in kinetic parameters better aligning with clinical data. Tools and techniques used to identify and compare kinetic models of this data set are provided, including various replots, visual inspection, examination of residuals, and the Akaike information criterion.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111867823&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1554-6_22; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34272710; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-0716-1554-6_22; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1554-6_22; https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-0716-1554-6_22
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know