Evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".