TABLE 6

Summary of prediction accuracy of different models

AUC Ratio Prediction ErroraSimcyp Time-Based ApproachStatic Model: kdeg = 0.03 h−1
kdeg = 0.0077 h−1kdeg = 0.03 h−1
All trials (n = 54)
    ≤0.5-fold11 (20%)29 (54%)19 (35%)
    ≤1-fold17 (31%)39 (72%)28 (52%)
    ≤2-fold31 (57%)47 (87%)41 (76%)
    >2-fold23 (43%)7 (13%)13 (24%)
    Average deviation2.030.721.03
        RMSE5.592.302.79
        GMFE1.841.311.51
Trials with observed AUC ratio ≥2 (n = 40)
    ≤0.5-fold3 (7.5%)19 (48%)11 (28%)
    ≤1-fold6 (15%)27 (68%)17 (43%)
    ≤2-fold18 (45%)34 (85%)29 (73%)
    >2-fold22 (55%)6 (15%)11 (27%)
    Average deviation2.560.881.09
        RMSE6.472.673.17
        GMFE2.021.331.49
Trials with observed AUC ratio <2 (n = 14)
    ≤0.5-fold8 (57%)10 (79%)6 (43%)
    ≤1-fold11 (79%)12 (86%)11 (79%)
    ≤2-fold13 (93%)13 (93%)12 (86%)
    >2-fold1 (7%)1 (7%)2 (14%)
    Average deviation0.540.270.72
        RMSE0.850.411.04
        GMFE1.091.061.55
Trials using midazolam as probe substrate (n = 27)
    ≤0.5-fold4 (15%)17 (63%)10 (37%)
    ≤1-fold8 (30%)22 (81%)14 (52%)
    ≤2-fold16 (59%)25 (93%)22 (81%)
    >2-fold11 (41%)2 (7%)5 (19%)
    Average deviation2.130.130.91
        RMSE3.691.021.86
        GMFE1.791.201.33
Trials with moderate CYP3A inhibitors (n = 28)
    ≤0.5-fold4 (14%)17 (61%)11 (39%)
    ≤1-fold7 (25%)23 (82%)16 (57%)
    ≤2-fold17 (61%)26 (93%)27 (96%)
    >2-fold11 (41%)2 (7%)1 (4%)
    Average deviation2.190.160.17
        RMSE3.151.811.15
        GMFE1.631.251.33
Trials with strong CYP3A inhibitors (n = 21)
    ≤0.5-fold2 (10%)9 (43%)5 (24%)
    ≤1-fold6 (29%)13 (62%)9 (43%)
    ≤2-fold11 (52%)16 (76%)11 (52%)
    >2-fold10 (48%)5 (24%)10 (48%)
    Average deviation1.651.432.06
        RMSE7.482.974.20
        GMFE2.301.361.67
  • a Prediction error = |observed AUC ratio − predicted AUC ratio|.