Non-linear mixed effect models are widely used and increasingly integrated into decision-making processes. Propagating uncertainty is an important element of this process, and while standard errors (SE) on pa- rameters are most often computed using asymptotic approaches, alternative methods such as the bootstrap are also available. In this article, we propose a modified residual parametric bootstrap taking into account the different levels of variability involved in these models.
The proposed approach uses samples from the individual conditional distribution, and was implemented in R using the saemix algorithm. We performed a simulation study to assess its performance in different scenarios, comparing it to the asymptotic approximation and to standard bootstraps in terms of coverage, also looking at bias in the parameters and their SE.
Simulations with an Emax model with different designs and sigmoidicity factors showed a similar coverage rate to the parametric bootstrap, while requiring less hypotheses. Bootstrap improved coverage in several scenarios compared to the asymptotic method especially for the variance param-eters. However, all bootstraps were sensitive to estimation bias in the original datasets.
The conditional bootstrap provided better coverage rate than the traditional residual bootstrap, while preserving the structure of the data generating process.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Lalonde RL, Kowalski KG, Hutmacher MM, Ewy W, Nichols DJ, Mil-ligan PA, et al. Model-based drug development Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:21–32.
Wang Y, Zhu H, Madabushi R, Liu Q, Huang SM, Zineh I. Model-informed drug development: current US regulatory practice and future considerations. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2019;105(4):899–911.
Desḿee S, Mentŕe F, Veyrat-Follet C, Śebastien B, Guedj J. Nonlinear joint models for individual dynamic prediction of risk of death using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo: application to metastatic prostate cancer. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:105.
Retout S, Mentŕe F, Bruno R. Fisher information matrix for nonlinear mixed-effects models: evaluation and application for optimal de- sign of enoxaparin population pharmacokinetics. Stat Med. 2002;21(18):2623–39.
Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis: Chapman & Hall /CRC Press; 2013.
Dartois C, Lemenuel-Diot A, Laveille C, Tranchand B, Tod M, Girard P. Evaluation of uncertainty parameters estimated by different population PK software and methods. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007;34:289–31.
Lindstrom MJ, Bates DM. Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics. 1990;46:673–87.
Dosne AG, Niebecker R, Karlsson MO. dOFV distributions: a new diagnostic for the adequacy of parameter uncertainty in nonlinear mixed effects models applied to the bootstrap. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2016;43:597–608.
Thai H, Mentŕe F, Holford NH, Veyrat-Follet C, Comets E. A comparison of bootstrap approaches for estimating uncertainty of parameters in linear mixed-effects models. Pharm Stat. 2013;12:129–40.
Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jacknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7:1–26.
Kümmel A, Peter L, Bonate JD, Krause A. Confidence and prediction intervals for Pharmacometric models. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7:360–73.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
Das S, Krishen A. Some bootstrap methods in non-linear mixed-effects models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 1999;75:237–45.
Carpenter JR, Goldstein H, Rasbash J. A novel bootstrap procedure for assessing the relationship between class size and achievement. Appl Stat. 2003;52:431–43.
Thai H, Mentŕe F, Holford NH, Veyrat-Follet C, Comets E. Evaluation of bootstrap methods for estimating uncertainty of parameters in nonlinear mixed-effects models: a simulation study in population pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2014;41:15–33.
Lavielle M, Ribba B. Enhanced method for diagnosing pharmacometric models: random sampling from conditional distributions. Pharm Res. 2016;33:2979–88.
Plan E, Maloney A, Mentŕe F, Karlsson M, Bertrand J. Performance comparison of various maximum likelihood nonlinear mixed-effects estimation methods for dose-response models. AAPS J. 2012;14:420–32.
Lavielle M. Mixed effects models for the population approach: models, tasks, methods and tools: Chapman & Hall CRC Bio- statistics Series; 2014.
Kuhn E, Lavielle M. Maximum likelihood estimation in nonlinear mixed effects models. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. 2005;49:1020–38.
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statis- tical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2006. ISBN 3–900051–07-0. Available from: http://www.R-project.org.
Comets E, Lavenu A, Lavielle M. Parameter estimation in nonlinear mixed effect models using saemix, an R implementation of the SAEM algorithm. J Stat Softw. 2017;80:1–41.
Karlsson M, Savic R. Diagnosing model diagnostics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:17–20.
Combes FP, Retout S, Frey N, Mentŕe F. Powers of the likelihood ratio test and the correlation test using empirical bayes estimates for various shrinkages in population pharmacokinetics. CPT: Pharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology. 2014;3:e109.
Broeker A, Wicha SG. Assessing parameter uncertainty in small-n pharmacometric analyses: value of the log-likelihood profiling-based sampling importance resampling (LLP-SIR) technique. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. 2020;47:219–28.
Dumont C, Lestini G, Le Nagard H, Mentŕe F, Comets E, Nguyen T, et al. PFIM 4.0, an extended R program for design evaluation and optimization in nonlinear mixed-effect models. Computer Methods and Programs Biomedicine. 2018;156:217–29.
Buatois S, Ueckert S, Frey N, Retout S, Mentŕe F. Comparison of model averaging and model selection in dose finding trials analyzed by nonlinear mixed effect models. AAPS J. 2018;20:56.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
(PDF 1305 kb)
Acknowledgments and Disclosures
Conceptualisation, E.C.; formal analysis and simulations, E.C. and C.R.; methodology, M.U. and E.C.; software: E.C. and C.R.; visualisation, E.C. and M.U.; writing, original draft, C.R. and E.C.; writing, review and editing, E.C., M.U. C.R. and V.J. This work was performed during the authors’ research time and no other funding was used. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files (see Appendix A) and are available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059718).
About this article
Cite this article
Comets, E., Rodrigues, C., Jullien, V. et al. Conditional Non-parametric Bootstrap for Non-linear Mixed Effect Models. Pharm Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-021-03052-6
- conditional distribution
- non-linear mixed effect models
- uncertainty of parameter estimates