Evaluation of FOCEI and SAEM Estimation Methods in Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis Using NONMEM Across Rich, Medium, and Sparse Sampling Data
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, ISSN: 2107-0180, Vol: 43, Issue: 6, Page: 729-736
2018
- 17Citations
- 42Captures
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.
Metrics Details
- Citations17
- Citation Indexes17
- CrossRef17
- 14
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Article Description
Background and Objectives: First-order conditional estimation with interaction (FOCEI) is one of the most commonly used estimation methods in nonlinear mixed effects modeling, while the stochastic approximation expectation maximization (SAEM) is the newer estimation algorithm. This work aimed to compare the performance of FOCEI and SAEM methods when using NONMEM with the classical one- and two-compartment models across rich, medium, and sparse data. Methods: One- and two-compartment models of the previous studies were used to simulate data in three scenarios: rich, medium, and sparse data. For each scenario, there were 100 data sets, containing 100 individuals in each data set. Every data set was estimated with both FOCEI and SAEM methods. The simulation and estimation were performed using NONMEM . The completion rates, percentage of relative estimation errors (%RERs), root mean square errors (RMSEs), and runtimes were considered to assess the completion, accuracy, precision, and speed of estimation, respectively. Results: Both FOCEI and SAEM methods provided comparable completion rates, median %RERs (ranged from − 9.03 to 3.27% for FOCEI and − 9.17 to 3.27% for SAEM) and RMSEs (ranged from 0.0004 to 1.244 for FOCEI and 0.0004 to 1.131 for SAEM) for most parameters in both models across three scenarios. The run times were much shorter with FOCEI (ranged from 0.18 to 0.98 min) compared to SAEM method (ranged from 4.64 to 12.03 min). Conclusions: For the classical one- and two-compartment models, FOCEI method exhibited comparable performance similar to SAEM method but with significantly shorter runtimes across rich, medium, and sparse sampling scenarios.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85047221923&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13318-018-0484-8; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29785609; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13318-018-0484-8; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13318-018-0484-8; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13318-018-0484-8
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