{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014405762304921969, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009603841536614645, 'mean_word_length': 5.132352941176471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A COMPARISON OF GRAPHICAL NOMOGRAM METHODS WITH A COMPUTERIZED BAYESIAN ANALYSIS METHOD IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SERUM PHENYTOIN CONCENTRATIONS

A study was performed to compare the predictability of a reported Bayesian graphical method, the drug nomogram used in the Bayesian Computer Method and the Driessen Nomogram with that of a computerized Bayesian analysis method in the interpretation of serum phenytoin concentrations. It was found that the results generated by the graphical method were similar to those of the computer with a mean prediction error of 3.9 mg/day in the dose to achieve a concentration at steady‐state of 20 ml/1. Overall the results of the graphical method were less biased and had more precision with a significant improvement in relative precision (P<0.01) than the initial estimate or Driessen methods.