4.1 Article

Identifiability of PBPK models with applications to dimethylarsinic acid exposure

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10928-015-9424-2

关键词

PBPK Models; Identifiability; Gibbs sampling; Metropolis-Hasting algorithm; Dimethyl arsinic acid

资金

  1. United States Environmental Protection Agency through Office of Research and Development
  2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Computational Toxicology through the Curriculum in Toxicology, University of North Carolina [CR83323710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Any statistical model should be identifiable in order for estimates and tests using it to be meaningful. We consider statistical analysis of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models in which parameters cannot be estimated precisely from available data, and discuss different types of identifiability that occur in PBPK models and give reasons why they occur. We particularly focus on how the mathematical structure of a PBPK model and lack of appropriate data can lead to statistical models in which it is impossible to estimate at least some parameters precisely. Methods are reviewed which can determine whether a purely linear PBPK model is globally identifiable. We propose a theorem which determines when identifiability at a set of finite and specific values of the mathematical PBPK model (global discete identifiability) implies identifiability of the statistical model. However, we are unable to establish conditions that imply global discrete identifiability, and conclude that the only safe approach to analysis of PBPK models involves Bayesian analysis with truncated priors. Finally, computational issues regarding posterior simulations of PBPK models are discussed. The methodology is very general and can be applied to numerous PBPK models which can be expressed as linear time-invariant systems. A real data set of a PBPK model for exposure to dimethyl arsinic acid (DMA(V)) is presented to illustrate the proposed methodology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据