Global sensitivity analysis of Open Systems Pharmacology Suite physiologically based pharmacokinetic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sensitivity analyses are important components of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model development and are required by regulatory agencies for PBPK submissions. They assess the impact of parametric uncertainty and variability on model estimates, aid model optimization by identifying parameters requiring calibration, and enable the testing of assumptions within PBPK models. One‐at‐a‐time (OAT) sensitivity analyses quantify the impact on a model output in response to changes in a single parameter while holding others fixed. Global sensitivity analysis (GSA) methods provide more comprehensive assessments by accounting for changes in all uncertain or variable parameters, though at a higher computational cost. This tutorial article presents a software package for conducting both OAT and GSA of PBPK models built in the Open Systems Pharmacology (OSP) Suite. The tool is accessible through either an R script or a graphical user interface, and the outputs consist of sensitivity metrics of pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, such as C max and AUC, evaluated with respect to model input parameters. Results are formatted according to regulatory standards. The OAT analysis methods comprise two‐way local sensitivity analyses and probabilistic uncertainty analyses, whereas the GSA methods include the Morris, Sobol, and EFAST methods. These analyses can be conducted on single PBPK models or pairs of models for the evaluation of the sensitivity of PK parameter ratios in drug–drug interaction studies. The practical application of the package is demonstrated through three illustrative case studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".