Understanding and applying pharmacometric modelling and simulation in clinical practice and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the dose-concentration-effect relationship is a fundamental component of clinical pharmacology. Interpreting data arising from observations of this relationship requires the use of mathematical models; i.e. pharmacokinetic (PK) models to describe the relationship between dose and concentration and pharmacodynamic (PD) models describing the relationship between concentration and effect. Drug development requires several iterations of pharmacometric model-informed learning and confirming. This includes modelling to understand the dose-response in preclinical studies, deriving a safe dose for first-in-man, and the overall analysis of Phase I/II data to optimise the dose for safety and efficacy in Phase III pivotal trials. However, drug development is not the boundary at which PKPD understanding and application stops. PKPD concepts will be useful to anyone involved in the prescribing and administration of medicines for purposes such as determining off-label dosing in special populations, individualising dosing based on a measured biomarker (personalised medicine) and in determining whether lack of efficacy or unexpected toxicity maybe solved by adjusting the dose rather than the drug. In clinical investigator-led study design, PKPD can be used to ensure the optimal dose is used, and crucially to define the expected effect size, thereby ensuring power calculations are based on sound prior information. In the clinical setting the most likely people to hold sufficient expertise to advise on PKPD matters will be the pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists. This paper reviews fundamental PKPD principles and provides some real-world examples of PKPD use in clinical practice and applied clinical research.
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 | 0.053 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".