To scale or not to scale: the principles of dose extrapolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principles of inter-species dose extrapolation are poorly understood and applied. We provide an overview of the principles underlying dose scaling for size and dose adjustment for size-independent differences. Scaling of a dose is required in three main situations: the anticipation of first-in-human doses for clinical trials, dose extrapolation in veterinary practice and dose extrapolation for experimental purposes. Each of these situations is discussed. Allometric scaling of drug doses is commonly used for practical reasons, but can be more accurate when one takes into account species differences in pharmacokinetic parameters (clearance, volume of distribution). Simple scaling of drug doses can be misleading for some drugs; correction for protein binding, physicochemical properties of the drug or species differences in physiological time can improve scaling. However, differences in drug transport and metabolism, and in the dose-response relationship, can override the effect of size alone. For this reason, a range of modelling approaches have been developed, which combine in silico simulations with data obtained in vitro and/or in vivo. Drugs that are unlikely to be amenable to simple allometric scaling of their clearance or dose include drugs that are highly protein-bound, drugs that undergo extensive metabolism and active transport, drugs that undergo significant biliary excretion (MW > 500, ampiphilic, conjugated), drugs whose targets are subject to inter-species differences in expression, affinity and distribution and drugs that undergo extensive renal secretion. In addition to inter-species dose extrapolation, we provide an overview of dose extrapolation within species, discussing drug dosing in paediatrics and in the elderly.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".