Pediatric Dose Selection for Therapeutic Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In selecting optimal dosing regimens in support of the clinical use of monoclonal antibodies and other therapeutic proteins in pediatric indications, the unique pharmacokinetic properties of this class of biologics, as well as the underlying physiologic and pathophysiologic processes and their modulation by childhood growth and development, needs to be appreciated. During drug development, first-in-pediatric dose selection is a capstone event in the pediatric investigation plan that relies heavily on extrapolation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data from adult to pediatric populations. It is facilitated by combinations of pharmacometric approaches, including allometry, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, and population pharmacokinetic analyses, although data on reliability and qualification of some of these tools in the context of therapeutic proteins are still limited but emerging. Presented data suggest nonlinear relationships between body weight and both clearance and volume of distribution for therapeutic proteins in pediatric populations, with allometric exponents of 0.75 and 0.8, respectively. For newborns and infants (<1 year), even higher nonlinearity seems to occur. Translation of the quantitative characterization of the pediatric pharmacokinetics of therapeutic proteins into dosing regimens for the drug label requires compromising between precision dosing and clinical practicability, with tiered dosing algorithms based on size or age strata being the currently most frequently applied methodology.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".