Estimation of QT interval prolongation through model-averaging
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, ISSN: 1573-8744, Vol: 44, Issue: 4, Page: 335-349
2017
- 1Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting 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.
Article Description
The current method to analyze concentration-QT interval data, which is based on predictions conditional on a best model, fails to take into account the uncertainty of the model. Previous studies have suggested that failure to take into account model uncertainty using a best model approach can result in confidence intervals that are overly optimistic and may be too narrow. Theoretically, more realistic estimates are obtained using model-averaging where the overall point estimate and confidence interval are a weighted-average from a set of candidate models, the weights of which are equal to each model’s Akaike weight. Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the degree of narrowness in the confidence interval for the degree of QT prolongation under a single ascending dose and thorough QT trial design. Results showed that model averaging performed as well as the best model approach under most conditions with no numeric advantage to using a model averaging approach. No difference was observed in the coverage of the confidence intervals when the best model and model averaging was done by AIC, AICc, or BIC, although in certain circumstances the coverage of the confidence interval themselves tended to be too narrow when using BIC. Modelers can continue to use the best model approach for concentration-QT modeling with confidence, although model averaging may offer more face validity, may be of value in cases where there is uncertainty or misspecification in the best model, and be more palatable to a non-technical reviewer than the best model approach.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85017665798&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9523-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28421417; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10928-017-9523-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-017-9523-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10928-017-9523-3
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