Amisaki T, Eguchi S
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Shimane University, Matsue, Japan.
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1995 Oct;23(5):479-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02353470.
For estimating pharmacokinetic parameters, we introduce the minimum relative entropy (MRE) method and compare its performance with least squares methods. There are several variants of least squares, such as ordinary least squares (OLS), weighted least squares, and iteratively reweighted least squares. In addition to these traditional methods, even extended least squares (ELS), a relatively new approach to nonlinear regression analysis, can be regarded as a variant of least squares. These methods are different from each other in their manner of handling weights. It has been recognized that least squares methods with an inadequate weighting scheme may cause misleading results (the "choice of weights" problem). Although least squares with uniform weights, i.e., OLS, is rarely used in pharmacokinetic analysis, it offers the principle of least squares. The objective function of OLS can be regarded as a distance between observed and theoretical pharmacokinetic values on the Euclidean space RN, where N is the number of observations. Thus OLS produces its estimates by minimizing the Euclidean distance. On the other hand, MRE works by minimizing the relative entropy which expresses discrepancy between two probability densities. Because pharmacokinetic functions are not density function in general, we use a particular form of the relative entropy whose domain is extended to the space of all positive functions. MRE never assumes any distribution of errors involved in observations. Thus, it can be a possible solution to the choice of weights problem. Moreover, since the mathematical form of the relative entropy, i.e., an expectation of the log-ratio of two probability density functions, is different from that of a usual Euclidean distance, the behavior of MRE may be different from those of least squares methods. To clarify the behavior of MRE, we have compared the performance of MRE with those of ELS and OLS by carrying out an intensive simulation study, where four pharmaco-kinetic models (mono- or biexponential, Bateman, Michaelis-Menten) and several variance models for distribution of observation errors are employed. The relative precision of each method was investigated by examining the absolute deviation of each individual parameter estimate from the known value. OLS is the best method and MRE is not a good one when the actual observation error magnitude conforms to the assumption of OLS, that is, error variance is constant, but OLS always behaves poorly with the other variance models. On the other hand, MRE performs better than ELS and OLS when the variance of observation is proportional to its mean. In contrast, ELS is superior to MRE and OLS when the standard deviation of observation is proportional to its mean. In either case the difference between MRE and ELS is relatively small. Generally, the performance of MRE is comparable to that of ELS. Thus MRE provides as reliable a method as ELS for estimating pharmacokinetic parameters.
为了估计药代动力学参数,我们引入了最小相对熵(MRE)方法,并将其性能与最小二乘法进行比较。最小二乘法有几种变体,如普通最小二乘法(OLS)、加权最小二乘法和迭代加权最小二乘法。除了这些传统方法外,即使是扩展最小二乘法(ELS),一种相对较新的非线性回归分析方法,也可被视为最小二乘法的一种变体。这些方法在处理权重的方式上彼此不同。人们已经认识到,权重方案不适当的最小二乘法可能会导致误导性结果(“权重选择”问题)。尽管具有均匀权重的最小二乘法,即OLS,在药代动力学分析中很少使用,但它提供了最小二乘法的原理。OLS的目标函数可以被视为欧几里得空间RN上观测到的和理论药代动力学值之间的距离,其中N是观测次数。因此,OLS通过最小化欧几里得距离来产生其估计值。另一方面,MRE通过最小化表示两个概率密度之间差异的相对熵来工作。由于药代动力学函数一般不是密度函数,我们使用相对熵的一种特殊形式,其定义域扩展到所有正函数的空间。MRE从不假定观测中涉及的误差有任何分布。因此,它可能是权重选择问题的一个可能解决方案。此外,由于相对熵的数学形式,即两个概率密度函数的对数比的期望,与通常的欧几里得距离不同,MRE的行为可能与最小二乘法不同。为了阐明MRE的行为,我们通过进行深入的模拟研究,比较了MRE与ELS和OLS的性能,其中采用了四个药代动力学模型(单指数或双指数、贝特曼、米氏方程)以及几个观测误差分布的方差模型。通过检查每个个体参数估计值与已知值的绝对偏差来研究每种方法的相对精度。当实际观测误差大小符合OLS的假设,即误差方差是常数时,OLS是最好的方法,而MRE不是一个好方法,但OLS在其他方差模型下总是表现不佳。另一方面,当观测方差与其均值成比例时,MRE的性能优于ELS和OLS。相比之下,当观测标准差与其均值成比例时,ELS优于MRE和OLS。在任何一种情况下,MRE和ELS之间的差异都相对较小。一般来说,MRE的性能与ELS相当。因此,MRE为估计药代动力学参数提供了一种与ELS一样可靠的方法。