Performance in population models for count data, part I: maximum likelihood approximations

被引:0
作者
Elodie L. Plan
Alan Maloney
Iñaki F. Trocóniz
Mats O. Karlsson
机构
[1] Uppsala University,Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Faculty of Pharmacy
[2] Exprimo NV,Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Technology, School of Pharmacy
[3] University of Navarra,undefined
来源
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics | 2009年 / 36卷
关键词
NONMEM; LAPLACE; Laplacian approximation; SAS; Gaussian quadrature; Maximum likelihood approximation; Count data; Poisson model;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
There has been little evaluation of maximum likelihood approximation methods for non-linear mixed effects modelling of count data. The aim of this study was to explore the estimation accuracy of population parameters from six count models, using two different methods and programs. Simulations of 100 data sets were performed in NONMEM for each probability distribution with parameter values derived from a real case study on 551 epileptic patients. Models investigated were: Poisson (PS), Poisson with Markov elements (PMAK), Poisson with a mixture distribution for individual observations (PMIX), Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP), Generalized Poisson (GP) and Negative Binomial (NB). Estimations of simulated datasets were completed with Laplacian approximation (LAPLACE) in NONMEM and LAPLACE/Gaussian Quadrature (GQ) in SAS. With LAPLACE, the average absolute value of the bias (AVB) in all models was 1.02% for fixed effects, and ranged 0.32–8.24% for the estimation of the random effect of the mean count (λ). The random effect of the overdispersion parameter present in ZIP, GP and NB was underestimated (−25.87, −15.73 and −21.93% of relative bias, respectively). Analysis with GQ 9 points resulted in an improvement in these parameters (3.80% average AVB). Methods implemented in SAS had a lower fraction of successful minimizations, and GQ 9 points was considerably slower than 1 point. Simulations showed that parameter estimates, even when biased, resulted in data that were only marginally different from data simulated from the true model. Thus all methods investigated appear to provide useful results for the investigated count data models.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
Sheiner BL(1981)Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters. II. Biexponential model and experimental pharmacokinetic data J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9 635-651
[2]  
Beal SL(1980)Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetics parameters. I. Michaelis–Menten model: routine clinical pharmacokinetic data J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 8 553-571
[3]  
Sheiner LB(1983)Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters. III. Monoexponential model: routine clinical pharmacokinetic data J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 11 303-319
[4]  
Beal SL(2007)Derivation of various NONMEM estimation methods J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34 575-593
[5]  
Sheiner LB(2002)Clinical trial simulation using therapeutic effect modeling: application to ivabradine efficacy in patients with angina pectoris J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 29 339-363
[6]  
Beal SL(2000)Simulation of clinical trials Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40 209-234
[7]  
Wang Y(1996)Bias correction in generalized linear mixed models with multiple components of dispersion J Am Stat Assoc 91 1007-1016
[8]  
Chabaud S(1995)An assessment of estimation procedures for multilevel models with binary responses J Royal Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 158 73-89
[9]  
Girard P(2004)Estimating bias in population parameters for some models for repeated measures ordinal data using NONMEM and NLMIXED J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 31 299-320
[10]  
Nony P(2003)Evaluation of mixture modeling with count data using NONMEM J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 30 167-183