Physiologically based pharmacokinetic models of small molecules and therapeutic antibodies: a mini‐review on fundamental concepts and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms of absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of small and large molecule therapeutics differ significantly from one another and can be explored within the framework of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model. This paper briefly reviews fundamental approaches to PBPK modeling, in which drug kinetics within tissues and organs are explicitly represented using physiologically meaningful parameters. The differences in PBPK models applied to small/large molecule drugs are highlighted, thus elucidating differences in absorption, distribution and elimination properties between these two classes of drugs in a systematic manner. The absorption of small and large molecules differs with respect to their common extravascular routes of delivery (oral versus subcutaneous). The role of the lymphatic system in drug distribution, and the involvement of tissues as sites of elimination (through catabolism and target mediated drug disposition) are unique features of antibody distribution and elimination that differ from small molecules, which are commonly distributed into the tissues but are eliminated primarily by liver metabolism. Fundamental differences exist in the ability to predict human pharmacokinetics based upon preclinical data due to differing mechanisms governing small and large molecule disposition. These differences have influence on the evolving utilization of PBPK modeling in the discovery and development of small and large molecule therapeutics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".