ArticleTherapeutic drug monitoring2026
Defining Optimal Sampling Strategies for Cefepime Model-Informed Precision Dosing.
Article in Therapeutic drug monitoring, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPopulation pharmacokinetic (PK) models can be combined with Bayesian estimation to optimize dosing regimens. The impact of sample collection time on the accuracy and precision of Bayesian predictions was evaluated.
methodsData from adult and pediatric patients were used to develop a cefepime population PK model for Bayesian prior use. Holdout data were used for model evaluation. Clinical dosing regimens in the latter cohort were used to conduct optimal sample-time analysis. The accuracy and precision of the Bayesian predictions were assessed as a function of infusion duration and the differences between the observed and optimal sampling times. Analyses were conducted using Pmetrics for R.
resultsAn allometrically scaled 2-compartment model was fitted (n = 71 patients, 685 observations). In the holdout group (n = 116 patients, 203 observations), the posterior Bayesian fit was acceptable (R2 = 0.923; relative bias -3%; median absolute error, 11.2%; F20, 72%; and F30, 86%). Mid-interval sampling was the optimal 1-sample design for 11/16 regimens. In the 2-sample design, a peak (8/16 regimens) and trough (9/16 regimens) approach was frequently optimal. The 2-sample design yields a lower Bayesian risk of misclassification. For 0.5-hour infusions, Bayesian predictions were similarly accurate but significantly more imprecise when samples were collected >2 hour away from the optimal time versus within ±1 hour of the optimal time (ΔRMSE: 8.98 mg/L, 95% CI: 3.61-15.7 mg/L). For 3 hours infusions, no significant differences in the accuracy or imprecision of the Bayesian predictions were noted.
conclusionsThe nonparametric cefepime population PK model fit as a Bayesian prior in the holdout group. The optimal timing of PK sample collection varied according to regimen type and infusion duration. The precision of Bayesian estimates was lower for 0.5-hour infusions when samples were collected further from the model-predicted regimen-specific optimal collection times.
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.