ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Analyzing Pharmacodynamic Count Data That Rapidly Decrease to Zero.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Analyzing Pharmacodynamic Count Data That Rapidly Decrease to Zero.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a framework for maximum likelihood analysis on count observations that begin high and quickly drop to zero, for example, from hollow fiber drug comparison studies. This simulation study focuses on treating observed counts as Poisson or normally distributed for the purpose of estimating infection rebound after effective treatment. CFU profiles were simulated from inoculation to 96 h post-treatment. The PK-PD link was an Emax inhibitory model. Random parameters were pathogen growth and natural decay rates, drug concentration for half-maximal effect, and drug pathogen kill rate. Other parameters, including PK, were fixed. Parameters were adjusted to attain 67% efficacy at 24 h. Random parameter values were optimized for profiles observed at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h assuming each of four probability assumptions: (1) all CFU measurements were Poisson distributed (truth); (2) CFU < 128 were Poisson, higher values were normally distributed; (3) all observations were normally distributed; and (4) observations were normally distributed but CFU < 10 were censored. CFU-time profiles were re-simulated using the optimized parameter densities. Rebound percentage (CFU ≥ 10 at 24 h post-treatment) was best predicted using strategy 2, above. For limited periodically collected time series count data that quickly fall to 0, the true proportion reaching 0 (lack of rebound) was best modeled by assuming Poisson distribution at low counts. At higher counts (≥ 128), assuming normality is reasonable. Censoring observations leads to biased models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.