Verifying in vitro‐determined enzyme contributions to cannabidiol clearance for exposure predictions in human through physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cannabidiol (CBD) is approved for treatment of seizures associated with two forms of epilepsy that become apparent in infancy or early childhood. To consider an adult physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for pediatric scaling, we assessed in vitro‐derived cytochrome P450 (CYP) and uridine 5′‐diphospho‐glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) enzyme contributions to CBD clearance in human. An i.v. PBPK model was constructed using CBD physicochemical properties and knowledge of disposition. The i.v. datasets were used for model building and evaluation. Oral PBPK models for CBD administered in fasted and fed states were developed using single dose oral datasets and parameters optimized from the i.v. model and evaluated with multiple dose datasets. Relative contributions of CBD metabolizing enzymes were partitioned according to in vitro studies. Clinical drug–drug interaction (DDI) studies were simulated using CBD fed state, itraconazole, fluconazole, and rifampicin PBPK models. Linear mixed effect modeling was used to estimate area under the concentration‐time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0–∞) perpetrator + CBD versus CBD alone. The i.v. and oral datasets used in model evaluation produced acceptable average fold error (AFE) of 1.28 and absolute AFE of 1.65. Relative contributions of drug‐metabolizing enzymes to CBD clearance were proposed from in vitro data: UGT1A7 4%, UGT1A9 16%, UGT2B7 10%, CYP3A4 38%, CYP2C19 21%, and CYP2C9 11%. The simulated DDI studies using the in vitro‐derived values produced AUC0–∞ treatment ratios comparable to observed: itraconazole 1.24 versus 1.07, fluconazole 1.45 versus 1.22, and rifampicin 0.49 versus 0.69. The constructed CBD PBPK models can predict adult exposures and have potential for use in pediatrics where exposure estimates are limited.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".