Literature DB >> 22767341

Application of a single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm approach to pharmacokinetic model building.

Eric A Sherer1, Mark E Sale, Bruce G Pollock, Chandra P Belani, Merrill J Egorin, Percy S Ivy, Jeffrey A Lieberman, Stephen B Manuck, Stephen R Marder, Matthew F Muldoon, Howard I Scher, David B Solit, Robert R Bies.   

Abstract

A limitation in traditional stepwise population pharmacokinetic model building is the difficulty in handling interactions between model components. To address this issue, a method was previously introduced which couples NONMEM parameter estimation and model fitness evaluation to a single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm for global optimization of the model structure. In this study, the generalizability of this approach for pharmacokinetic model building is evaluated by comparing (1) correct and spurious covariate relationships in a simulated dataset resulting from automated stepwise covariate modeling, Lasso methods, and single-objective hybrid genetic algorithm approaches to covariate identification and (2) information criteria values, model structures, convergence, and model parameter values resulting from manual stepwise versus single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm approaches to model building for seven compounds. Both manual stepwise and single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm approaches to model building were applied, blinded to the results of the other approach, for selection of the compartment structure as well as inclusion and model form of inter-individual and inter-occasion variability, residual error, and covariates from a common set of model options. For the simulated dataset, stepwise covariate modeling identified three of four true covariates and two spurious covariates; Lasso identified two of four true and 0 spurious covariates; and the single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm identified three of four true covariates and one spurious covariate. For the clinical datasets, the Akaike information criterion was a median of 22.3 points lower (range of 470.5 point decrease to 0.1 point decrease) for the best single-objective hybrid genetic-algorithm candidate model versus the final manual stepwise model: the Akaike information criterion was lower by greater than 10 points for four compounds and differed by less than 10 points for three compounds. The root mean squared error and absolute mean prediction error of the best single-objective hybrid genetic algorithm candidates were a median of 0.2 points higher (range of 38.9 point decrease to 27.3 point increase) and 0.02 points lower (range of 0.98 point decrease to 0.74 point increase), respectively, than that of the final stepwise models. In addition, the best single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm candidate models had successful convergence and covariance steps for each compound, used the same compartment structure as the manual stepwise approach for 6 of 7 (86 %) compounds, and identified 54 % (7 of 13) of covariates included by the manual stepwise approach and 16 covariate relationships not included by manual stepwise models. The model parameter values between the final manual stepwise and best single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm models differed by a median of 26.7 % (q₁ = 4.9 % and q₃ = 57.1 %). Finally, the single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm approach was able to identify models capable of estimating absorption rate parameters for four compounds that the manual stepwise approach did not identify. The single-objective, hybrid genetic algorithm represents a general pharmacokinetic model building methodology whose ability to rapidly search the feasible solution space leads to nearly equivalent or superior model fits to pharmacokinetic data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22767341      PMCID: PMC3400037          DOI: 10.1007/s10928-012-9258-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn        ISSN: 1567-567X            Impact factor:   2.745


  18 in total

1.  Xpose--an S-PLUS based population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model building aid for NONMEM.

Authors:  E N Jonsson; M O Karlsson
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  Population pharmacokinetic modeling of ziprasidone in patients with schizophrenia from the CATIE study.

Authors:  Alette M Wessels; Robert R Bies; Bruce G Pollock; Lon S Schneider; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Scott Stroup; Claire H Li; Kim Coley; Margaret M Kirshner; Stephen R Marder
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 3.126

3.  A genetic algorithm-based, hybrid machine learning approach to model selection.

Authors:  Robert R Bies; Matthew F Muldoon; Bruce G Pollock; Steven Manuck; Gwenn Smith; Mark E Sale
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Lon S Schneider; Pierre N Tariot; Karen S Dagerman; Sonia M Davis; John K Hsiao; M Saleem Ismail; Barry D Lebowitz; Constantine G Lyketsos; J Michael Ryan; T Scott Stroup; David L Sultzer; Daniel Weintraub; Jeffrey A Lieberman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-10-12       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.

Authors:  D W Cockcroft; M H Gault
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.847

6.  The metabolic syndrome is associated with reduced central serotonergic responsivity in healthy community volunteers.

Authors:  Matthew F Muldoon; Rachel H Mackey; Mary T Korytkowski; Janine D Flory; Bruce G Pollock; Stephen B Manuck
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 5.958

7.  Automated covariate model building within NONMEM.

Authors:  E N Jonsson; M O Karlsson
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Simplified calculation of body-surface area.

Authors:  R D Mosteller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-10-22       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Interaction between structural, statistical, and covariate models in population pharmacokinetic analysis.

Authors:  J R Wade; S L Beal; N C Sambol
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1994-04

10.  The National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) project: schizophrenia trial design and protocol development.

Authors:  T Scott Stroup; Joseph P McEvoy; Marvin S Swartz; Matthew J Byerly; Ira D Glick; Jose M Canive; Mark F McGee; George M Simpson; Michael C Stevens; Jeffrey A Lieberman
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 9.306

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Covariate selection in pharmacometric analyses: a review of methods.

Authors:  Matthew M Hutmacher; Kenneth G Kowalski
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Artificial Intelligence and Pharmacometrics: Time to Embrace, Capitalize, and Advance?

Authors:  Ayyappa Chaturvedula; Stacie Calad-Thomson; Chao Liu; Mark Sale; Nandu Gattu; Navin Goyal
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-05

3.  Population pharmacokinetic model selection assisted by machine learning.

Authors:  Emeric Sibieude; Akash Khandelwal; Pascal Girard; Jan S Hesthaven; Nadia Terranova
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Machine Learning and Pharmacometrics for Prediction of Pharmacokinetic Data: Differences, Similarities and Challenges Illustrated with Rifampicin.

Authors:  Lina Keutzer; Huifang You; Ali Farnoud; Joakim Nyberg; Sebastian G Wicha; Gareth Maher-Edwards; Georgios Vlasakakis; Gita Khalili Moghaddam; Elin M Svensson; Michael P Menden; Ulrika S H Simonsson
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 6.525

5.  Budesonide Foam Has a Favorable Safety Profile for Inducing Remission in Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Proctitis or Proctosigmoiditis.

Authors:  David T Rubin; William J Sandborn; Brian Bosworth; Salam Zakko; Glenn L Gordon; Mark E Sale; Robert L Rolleri; Pamela L Golden; Andrew C Barrett; Enoch Bortey; William P Forbes
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Machine Learning in Drug Discovery and Development Part 1: A Primer.

Authors:  Alan Talevi; Juan Francisco Morales; Gregory Hather; Jagdeep T Podichetty; Sarah Kim; Peter C Bloomingdale; Samuel Kim; Jackson Burton; Joshua D Brown; Almut G Winterstein; Stephan Schmidt; Jensen Kael White; Daniela J Conrado
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2020-03-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.