Review of the Technical, Toxicological, and PKPD Considerations for Conducting Inhalation Toxicity Studies on Biologic Pharmaceuticals—The Outcome of a Cross-Industry Working Group Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inhaled route is still a relatively novel route for delivering biologics and poses additional challenges to those encountered with inhaled small molecules, further complicating the design and interpretation of toxicology studies. A working group formed to summarize the current knowledge of inhaled biologics across industry and to analyze data collated from an anonymized cross-industry survey comprising 12 inhaled biologic case studies (18 individual inhalation toxicity studies on monoclonal antibodies, fragment antibodies, domain antibodies, oligonucleotides, and proteins/peptides). The output of this working group provides valuable insights into the issues faced when conducting toxicology studies with inhaled biologics, including common technical considerations on aerosol generation, use of young and sexually mature nonhuman primates, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling, exposure and immunogenicity assessment, maximum dose setting, and no observed adverse effect levels determination. Although the current data set is too small to allow firm conclusions, testing of novel biologics remains an active area and is likely to remain so for molecules where delivery via the inhaled route is beneficial. In the future, it is hoped others will continue to share their experiences and build on the conclusions of this review to further improve our understanding of these complex issues and, ultimately, facilitate the safe introduction of inhaled biologics into clinical use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".