Establishing best practices and guidance in population modeling: an experience with an internal population pharmacokinetic analysis guidance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Byon W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6483270 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Establishing best practices and guidance in population modeling: an experience with an internal population pharmacokinetic analysis guidance.
Byon W W Smith M K MK Chan P P Tortorici M A MA Riley S S Dai H H Dong J J Ruiz-Garcia A A Sweeney K K Cronenberger C C
CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology 20130703
Similar Datasets
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2018-06-08 | GSE107768 | GEO
Project description:Enhanced cross-linking immunoprecipitation (eCLIP) featuring a size-matched input control has been recently applied to profile the binding sites of more than one hundred RNA binding proteins (RBPs). However computational pipelines and quality control metrics needed to process CLIP data at scale have yet to be well defined. Here, we describe our ENCODE eCLIP processing pipeline (https://github.com/YeoLab/eclip), enabling users to go from raw reads to processed peaks that are enriched above paired input, reproducible across biological replicates, and can be directly compared against the public ENCODE eCLIP resource. In particular, we discuss processing steps designed to address common artifacts, including properly quantifying unique RNA fragments bound by both unique genomic- and repetitive element-mapped reads. Using manual quality annotation of 350 ENCODE eCLIP experiments, we develop metrics for quality assessment of eCLIP experiments prior to and after sequencing, including library yield, number of unique fragments in the library, total binding relative information, and biological reproducibility. In particular, we quantify the commonly believed linkage between depth of sequencing and peak discovery, and derive methods for estimating required sequencing depth based on pre-sequencing metrics. Finally we provide recommendations for the common question of integrating RBP binding information with RNA-seq to generate splicing maps representing the positional effect of binding on alternative splicing. These pipelines and QC metrics enable large-scale processing and analysis of eCLIP data, and will help to standardize rigorous analysis of RBP binding data.
2018-06-08 | GSE107767 | GEO
Project description:Enhanced cross-linking immunoprecipitation (eCLIP) featuring a size-matched input control has been recently applied to profile the binding sites of more than one hundred RNA binding proteins (RBPs). However computational pipelines and quality control metrics needed to process CLIP data at scale have yet to be well defined. Here, we describe our ENCODE eCLIP processing pipeline (https://github.com/YeoLab/eclip), enabling users to go from raw reads to processed peaks that are enriched above paired input, reproducible across biological replicates, and can be directly compared against the public ENCODE eCLIP resource. In particular, we discuss processing steps designed to address common artifacts, including properly quantifying unique RNA fragments bound by both unique genomic- and repetitive element-mapped reads. Using manual quality annotation of 350 ENCODE eCLIP experiments, we develop metrics for quality assessment of eCLIP experiments prior to and after sequencing, including library yield, number of unique fragments in the library, total binding relative information, and biological reproducibility. In particular, we quantify the commonly believed linkage between depth of sequencing and peak discovery, and derive methods for estimating required sequencing depth based on pre-sequencing metrics. Finally we provide recommendations for the common question of integrating RBP binding information with RNA-seq to generate splicing maps representing the positional effect of binding on alternative splicing. These pipelines and QC metrics enable large-scale processing and analysis of eCLIP data, and will help to standardize rigorous analysis of RBP binding data.
2018-06-08 | GSE107766 | GEO
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10258887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10248995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08304-x.
| S-EPMC10247272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This submission is a dataset of single-nucleus multi-omics of uninjured and injured spinal cords of mice harvested and profiled using 10x Multiome ATAC + Gene Expression kit.
2024-04-30 | GSE230765 | GEO
Project description:Dalbavancin is indicated for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by susceptible gram-positive microorganisms. This analysis represents the update of the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) modeling and target attainment simulations performed with data from the single-dose safety and efficacy study and an unrelated but substantial revision of the preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target (fAUC/MIC, free area under concentration-time curve/minimum inhibitory concentration ratio). A 3-compartment distribution model with first-order elimination provided an appropriate fit, with typical dalbavancin clearance of 0.05 L/h and total volume of distribution of ∼15 L. Impact of intrinsic factors was modest, although statistically significant (P < .05) relationships with total clearance were found for the following covariates: creatinine clearance, weight, and albumin - dose adjustment was only indicated for severe renal impairment. Under the new nonclinical target, simulations of the popPK model projected that >99% of subjects would achieve the nonclinical target at MIC values up to and including 2 mg/L.
| S-EPMC7003773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Considerable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes. Methods and analysis Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250046.
| S-EPMC8572404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Best practices for eCLIP experiments and analysis
| PRJNA421341 | ENA