Dynamic Mass Balance Modeling for Chemical Distribution Over Time in In Vitro Systems With Repeated Dosing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As toxicologists and risk assessors move away from animal testing and more toward using in vitro models and biological modeling, it is necessary to produce tools to quantify the chemical distribution within the in vitro environment prior to extrapolating in vitro concentrations to human equivalent doses. Although models predicting chemical distribution in vitro have been developed, very little has been done for repeated dosing scenarios, which are common in prolonged experiments where the medium needs to be refreshed. Failure to account for repeated dosing may lead to inaccurate estimations of exposure and introduce bias into subsequent in vitro to in vivo extrapolations. Our objectives were to develop a dynamic mass balance model for repeated dosing in in vitro systems; to evaluate model accuracy against experimental data; and to perform illustrative simulations to assess the impact of repeated doses on predicted cellular concentrations. A novel dynamic in vitro partitioning mass balance model (IV-MBM DP v1.0) was created based on the well-established fugacity approach. We parameterized and applied the dynamic mass balance model to single dose and repeat dosing scenarios, and evaluated the predicted medium and cellular concentrations against available empirical data. We also simulated repeated dosing scenarios for organic chemicals with a range of partitioning properties and compared the in vitro distributions over time. In single dose scenarios, for which only medium concentrations were available, simulated concentrations predicted measured concentrations with coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.85–0.89, mean absolute error within a factor of two and model bias of nearly one. Repeat dose scenario simulations displayed model bias <2 within the cell lysate, and ∼1.5-3 in the medium. The concordance between simulated and available experimental data supports the predictive capacity of the IV-MBM DP v1.0 tool, but further evaluation as empirical data becomes available is warranted, especially for cellular concentrations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".