Evaluation of bias, precision, robustness and runtime for estimation methods in NONMEM 7

被引:18
|
作者
Johansson, Asa M. [1 ]
Ueckert, Sebastian [1 ]
Plan, Elodie L. [1 ]
Hooker, Andrew C. [1 ]
Karlsson, Mats O. [1 ]
机构
[1] Uppsala Univ, Pharmacometr Res Grp, Dept Pharmaceut Biosci, S-75124 Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
Non-linear mixed effect models; Estimation algorithms; FOCE; Laplace; SAEM; Importance sampling; PHARMACODYNAMIC MODELS; POPULATION; PERFORMANCE; PARAMETERS;
D O I
10.1007/s10928-014-9359-z
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
NONMEM is the most widely used software for population pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) analyses. The latest version, NONMEM 7 (NM7), includes several sampling-based estimation methods in addition to the classical methods. In this study, performance of the estimation methods available in NM7 was investigated with respect to bias, precision, robustness and runtime for a diverse set of PD models. Simulations of 500 data sets from each PD model were reanalyzed with the available estimation methods to investigate bias and precision. Simulations of 100 data sets were used to investigate robustness by comparing final estimates obtained after estimations starting from the true parameter values and initial estimates randomly generated using the CHAIN feature in NM7. Average estimation time for each algorithm and each model was calculated from the runtimes reported by NM7. The method giving the lowest bias and highest precision across models was importance sampling, closely followed by FOCE/LAPLACE and stochastic approximation expectation-maximization. The methods relative robustness differed between models and no method showed clear superior performance. FOCE/LAPLACE was the method with the shortest runtime for all models, followed by iterative two-stage. The Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo method, used in this study for point estimation, performed worst in all tested metrics.
引用
收藏
页码:223 / 238
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [32] Evaluation of 7-degree-of-freedom robotic arm precision and effects of calibration methods
    Hurwitz, Arnon
    Childers, Marshal
    Davis, Kristi
    DiBlasi, Michael
    Dotterweich, Jim
    Kaplan, Matt
    Kessens, Chad
    Rocks, Trevor
    UNMANNED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY XXI, 2019, 11021
  • [33] ON 2 METHODS OF BIAS REDUCTION IN ESTIMATION OF RATIOS
    RAO, JNK
    WEBSTER, JT
    ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, 1966, 37 (02): : 554 - &
  • [34] ON 2 METHODS OF BIAS REDUCTION IN ESTIMATION OF RATIOS
    RAO, JNK
    WEBSTER, JT
    BIOMETRIKA, 1966, 53 : 571 - &
  • [35] BIAS ESTIMATION METHODS FOR THE BURDEN OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER
    Hutchings, S.
    Rushton, L.
    JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2011, 65 : A115 - A115
  • [36] COMPARING THE PRECISION OF ARMA MODEL ESTIMATION METHODS
    Kodera, Jan
    Quang Van Tran
    APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS IN ECONOMICS, 2016, : 192 - 203
  • [37] Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities
    Wintle, BA
    McCarthy, MA
    Parris, KM
    Burgman, MA
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2004, 14 (03) : 703 - 712
  • [38] Bias Amplification to Facilitate the Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Methods
    Burgon, Alexis
    Zhang, Yuhang
    Petrick, Nicholas
    Sahiner, Berkman
    Cha, Kenny H.
    Samala, Ravi K.
    IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS, 2025, 29 (02) : 1444 - 1454
  • [39] EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT PRECISION IN EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
    KUBACEK, L
    MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES-USSR, 1965, (03): : 206 - &
  • [40] On Robustness of l1-Regularization Methods for Spectral Estimation
    Karlsson, Johan
    Ning, Lipeng
    2014 IEEE 53RD ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON DECISION AND CONTROL (CDC), 2014, : 1767 - 1773