An automated approach to identify scientific publications reporting pharmacokinetic parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacokinetic (PK) predictions of new chemical entities are aided by prior knowledge from other compounds. The development of robust algorithms that improve preclinical and clinical phases of drug development remains constrained by the need to search, curate and standardise PK information across the constantly-growing scientific literature. The lack of centralised, up-to-date and comprehensive repositories of PK data represents a significant limitation in the drug development pipeline.In this work, we propose a machine learning approach to automatically identify and characterise scientific publications reporting PK parameters from in vivo data, providing a centralised repository of PK literature. A dataset of 4,792 PubMed publications was labelled by field experts depending on whether in vivo PK parameters were estimated in the study. Different classification pipelines were compared using a bootstrap approach and the best-performing architecture was used to develop a comprehensive and automatically-updated repository of PK publications. The best-performing architecture encoded documents using unigram features and mean pooling of BioBERT embeddings obtaining an F1 score of 83.8% on the test set. The pipeline retrieved over 121K PubMed publications in which in vivo PK parameters were estimated and it was scheduled to perform weekly updates on newly published articles. All the relevant documents were released through a publicly available web interface (https://app.pkpdai.com) and characterised by the drugs, species and conditions mentioned in the abstract, to facilitate the subsequent search of relevant PK data. This automated, open-access repository can be used to accelerate the search and comparison of PK results, curate ADME datasets, and facilitate subsequent text mining tasks in the PK domain.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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".