Importance of Shrinkage in Empirical Bayes Estimates for Diagnostics: Problems and Solutions
- 1.3k Downloads
Empirical Bayes (“post hoc”) estimates (EBEs) of ηs provide modelers with diagnostics: the EBEs themselves, individual prediction (IPRED), and residual errors (individual weighted residual (IWRES)). When data are uninformative at the individual level, the EBE distribution will shrink towards zero (η-shrinkage, quantified as 1-SD(η EBE)/ω), IPREDs towards the corresponding observations, and IWRES towards zero (ε-shrinkage, quantified as 1-SD(IWRES)). These diagnostics are widely used in pharmacokinetic (PK) pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling; we investigate here their usefulness in the presence of shrinkage. Datasets were simulated from a range of PK PD models, EBEs estimated in non-linear mixed effects modeling based on the true or a misspecified model, and desired diagnostics evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively. Identified consequences of η-shrinkage on EBE-based model diagnostics include non-normal and/or asymmetric distribution of EBEs with their mean values (“ETABAR”) significantly different from zero, even for a correctly specified model; EBE–EBE correlations and covariate relationships may be masked, falsely induced, or the shape of the true relationship distorted. Consequences of ε-shrinkage included low power of IPRED and IWRES to diagnose structural and residual error model misspecification, respectively. EBE-based diagnostics should be interpreted with caution whenever substantial η- or ε-shrinkage exists (usually greater than 20% to 30%). Reporting the magnitude of η- and ε-shrinkage will facilitate the informed use and interpretation of EBE-based diagnostics.
Key wordsempirical Bayes estimate model building model evaluation NONMEM shrinkage
The authors would like to thank Dr. Siv Jönsson for valuable comments on the manuscript, Paul Baverel for his help with reviewing shrinkage in real models and datasets, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.
- 1.Williams PJ, Ette EI, editors. Pharmacometrics: the science of quantitative pharmacology. New York: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
- 4.FDA. Guidance for industry, population pharmacokinetics. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.Davidian M, Giltinan DM. Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1995.Google Scholar
- 12.Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ. NONMEM users guides. Ellicott City, MD: Icon Development Solutions; 1989–2006.Google Scholar
- 15.Verbeke G, Molenberghs G. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer; 2000. p. 80–1.Google Scholar
- 19.Bruno R, Iliadis MC, Lacarelle B, Cosson V, Mandema JW, Le Roux Y, et al. Evaluation of Bayesian estimation in comparison to NONMEM for population pharmacokinetic data analysis: application to pefloxacin in intensive care unit patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:653–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Lindemalm S, Liliemark J, Gruber A, Eriksson S, Karlsson MO, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of cytotoxicity of 2-chloro-2′-arabino-fluoro-2′-deoxyadenosine (clofarabine) with cladribine in mononuclear cells from patients with acute myeloid and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Haematologica. 2003;88:324–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar