Evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models are sophisticated dosimetry models that offer great flexibility in modeling exposure scenarios for which there are limited data. This is particularly of relevance to assessing human exposure to environmental toxicants, which often requires a number of extrapolations across species, route, or dose levels. The continued development of PBPK models ensures that regulatory agencies will increasingly experience the need to evaluate available models for their application in risk assessment. To date, there are few published criteria or well-defined standards for evaluating these models. Herein, important considerations for evaluating such models are described. The evaluation of PBPK models intended for risk assessment applications should include a consideration of: model purpose, model structure, mathematical representation, parameter estimation, computer implementation, predictive capacity and statistical analyses. Model purpose and structure require qualitative checks on the biological plausibility of a model. Mathematical representation, parameter estimation, computer implementation involve an assessment of the coding of the model, as well as the selection and justification of the physical, physicochemical and biochemical parameters chosen to represent a biological organism. Finally, the predictive capacity and sensitivity, variability and uncertainty of the model are analysed so that the applicability of a model for risk assessment can be determined. Published in 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it