Optimizing drug development of anti‐cancer drugs in children using modelling and simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling and simulation (M&S)-based approaches have been proposed to support paediatric drug development in order to design and analyze clinical studies efficiently. Development of anti-cancer drugs in the paediatric population is particularly challenging due to ethical and practical constraints. We aimed to review the application of M&S in the development of anti-cancer drugs in the paediatric population, and to identify where M&S-based approaches could provide additional support in paediatric drug development of anti-cancer drugs. A structured literature search on PubMed was performed. The majority of identified M&S-based studies aimed to use population PK modelling approaches to identify determinants of inter-individual variability, in order to optimize dosing regimens and to develop therapeutic drug monitoring strategies. Prospective applications of M&S approaches for PK-bridging studies have scarcely been reported for paediatric oncology. Based on recent developments of M&S in drug development there are several opportunities where M&S could support more informative bridging between children and adults, and increase efficiency of the design and analysis of paediatric clinical trials, which should ultimately lead to further optimization of drug treatment strategies in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".