Whole body physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models: their use in clinical drug development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole-body physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (WB-PBPK) models mathematically describe an organism as a closed circulatory system consisting of compartments that represent the organs important for compound absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination. OBJECTIVES: To review the current state of WB-PBPK model use in the clinical phases of drug development. METHODS: A qualitative description of the WB-PBPK model structure is included along with a review of the varying methods available for input parameterisation. Current and potential WB-PBPK model application in clinical development is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This modelling tool is at present used for small and large molecule drug development primarily as a means to scale pharmacokinetics from animals to humans based on physiology. The pharmaceutical industry is active in employing these models to clinical drug development although the applications in use now are narrow in comparison to the potential. Expanded integration of WB-PBPK models into the drug development process will only be achieved with staff training, managerial will, success stories and regulatory agency openness.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".