Image‐guided mathematical modeling for pharmacological evaluation of nanomaterials and monoclonal antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While plasma concentration kinetics has traditionally been the predictor of drug pharmacological effects, it can occasionally fail to represent kinetics at the site of action, particularly for solid tumors. This is especially true in the case of delivery of therapeutic macromolecules (drug-loaded nanomaterials or monoclonal antibodies), which can experience challenges to effective delivery due to particle size-dependent diffusion barriers at the target site. As a result, disparity between therapeutic plasma kinetics and kinetics at the site of action may exist, highlighting the importance of target site concentration kinetics in determining the pharmacodynamic effects of macromolecular therapeutic agents. Assessment of concentration kinetics at the target site has been facilitated by non-invasive in vivo imaging modalities. This allows for visualization and quantification of the whole-body disposition behavior of therapeutics that is essential for a comprehensive understanding of their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Quantitative non-invasive imaging can also help guide the development and parameterization of mathematical models for descriptive and predictive purposes. Here, we present a review of the application of state-of-the-art imaging modalities for quantitative pharmacological evaluation of therapeutic nanoparticles and monoclonal antibodies, with a focus on their integration with mathematical models, and identify challenges and opportunities. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease Diagnostic Tools > in vivo Nanodiagnostics and Imaging Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".