MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984541876 · doi:10.3109/00498254.2013.770182

Correlation-based prediction of tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients using readily available input parameters

2013· article· en· W1984541876 on OpenAlexaff
Yejin Esther Yun, Andrea N. Edginton

Bibliographic record

VenueXenobiotica · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipophilicityPhysiologically based pharmacokinetic modellingPartition coefficientBiological systemCorrelationPartition (number theory)Stepwise regressionDistribution (mathematics)UsabilityConfidence intervalMathematicsPharmacokineticsComputer scienceChemistryStatisticsChromatographyBioinformaticsStereochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: 1. RATIONALE: Tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients (Kp) that characterize the tissue distribution of a drug are important input parameters in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. The aim of this study was to develop an empirically derived Kp prediction algorithm using input parameters that are available early in the investigation of a compound. 2. METHODS: The algorithm development dataset (n = 97 compounds) was divided according to acidic/basic properties. Using multiple stepwise regression, the experimentally derived Kp values were correlated with the rat volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) and one or more physicochemical parameters (e.g. lipophilicity, degree of ionization and protein binding) to account for inter-organ variability of tissue distribution. 3. RESULTS: Prediction equations for the value of Kp were developed for 11 tissues. Validation of this model using a test dataset (n = 20 compounds) demonstrated that 65% of the predicted Kp values were within a two-fold error deviation from the experimental values. The developed algorithms had greater prediction accuracy compared to an existing empirically derived and a mechanistic tissue-composition algorithm. 4. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative method uses readily available input parameters with reasonable prediction accuracy and will thus enhance both the usability and the confidence in the outputs of PBPK models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueXenobioticaSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207