MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414476131 · doi:10.1002/psp4.70115

An Open‐Source Framework for Virtual Bioequivalence Modeling and Clinical Trial Design

2025· article· en· W4414476131 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah Hamadeh, Moriah Pellowe, Pierre Chelle, Cindy H. T. Yeung, Julian D. Otalvaro, Walter M. Yamada, Jay Bartroff, Alona Kryshchenko, André Dallmann, Juri Solodenko, Jörg Lippert, Eleftheria Tsakalozou, Michael Neely, Andrea N. Edginton

Bibliographic record

VenueCPT Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFood and Drug AdministrationU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsBioequivalencePhysiologically based pharmacokinetic modellingIn silicoIVIVCToolboxReworkInferenceIn vivoBenchmark (surveying)Repurposing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To establish bioequivalence (BE) of a generic test formulation with respect to a reference listed drug, it is necessary to demonstrate a comparable rate and extent to which active ingredients reach the site of action. To decrease unnecessary human testing and simulate scenarios involving specific populations or challenges with recruitment or study design, industry and regulators are increasingly considering in silico virtual bioequivalence (VBE) approaches. This tutorial introduces the VBEToolbox R package: a toolbox within the Open Systems Pharmacology framework to streamline and standardize computational VBE workflows. The package integrates in vitro and in vivo data to train pharmacokinetic models through inference of inter-individual variability from clinical data and establishment of in vitro to in vivo extrapolations. A nonparametric approach is adopted to account for uncertainties from parameter non-identifiability. The trained model is then applied to determine the study size with statistical power needed to demonstrate BE virtually. The use of the VBE tool is illustrated with two case studies. The first evaluates the VBE of petrolatum and ethylene glycol dermal formulations of testosterone by integrating in vitro skin permeation tests, vehicle/skin partitioning data, testosterone solubility data, and in vivo absorption data in a mechanistic in vitro/in vivo dermal absorption model. The second assesses the VBE of two oral bupropion formulations by integrating in vitro dissolution data in a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. These case studies highlight essential considerations for model development, training, and extrapolation toward application for VBE assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.765
GPT teacher head0.679
Teacher spread0.086 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCPT Pharmacometrics & Systems PharmacologySame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207