Predicting Oral Drug Absorption: Mini Review on Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models
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
Most marketed drugs are administered orally, despite the complex process of oral absorption that is difficult to predict. Oral bioavailability is dependent on the interplay between many processes that are dependent on both compound and physiological properties. Because of this complexity, computational oral physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have emerged as a tool to integrate these factors in an attempt to mechanistically capture the process of oral absorption. These models use inputs from in vitro assays to predict the pharmacokinetic behavior of drugs in the human body. The most common oral PBPK models are compartmental approaches, in which the gastrointestinal tract is characterized as a series of compartments through which the drug transits. The focus of this review is on the development of oral absorption PBPK models, followed by a brief discussion of the major applications of oral PBPK models in the pharmaceutical industry.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it