Physiologically based radiopharmacokinetic (PBRPK) modeling to simulate and analyze radiopharmaceutical therapies: studies of non-linearities, multi-bolus injections, and albumin binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a publicly shared computational physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to reliably simulate and analyze radiopharmaceutical therapies (RPTs), including probing of hot-cold ligand competitions as well as alternative injection scenarios and drug designs, towards optimal therapies. RESULTS: To handle the complexity of PBPK models (over 150 differential equations), a scalable modeling notation called the "reaction graph" is introduced, enabling easy inclusion of various interactions. We refer to this as physiologically based radiopharmacokinetic (PBRPK) modeling, fine-tuned specifically for radiopharmaceuticals. As three important applications, we used our PBRPK model to (1) study the effect of competition between hot and cold species on delivered doses to tumors and organs at risk. In addition, (2) we evaluated an alternative paradigm of utilizing multi-bolus injections in RPTs instead of prevalent single injections. Finally, (3) we used PBRPK modeling to study the impact of varying albumin-binding affinities by ligands, and the implications for RPTs. We found that competition between labeled and unlabeled ligands can lead to non-linear relations between injected activity and the delivered dose to a particular organ, in the sense that doubling the injected activity does not necessarily result in a doubled dose delivered to a particular organ (a false intuition from external beam radiotherapy). In addition, we observed that fractionating injections can lead to a higher payload of dose delivery to organs, though not a differential dose delivery to the tumor. By contrast, we found out that increased albumin-binding affinities of the injected ligands can lead to such a differential effect in delivering more doses to tumors, and this can be attributed to several factors that PBRPK modeling allows us to probe. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced computational PBRPK modeling enables simulation and analysis of a variety of intervention and drug design scenarios, towards more optimal delivery of RPTs.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".