In Silico Clinical Trials in Drug Development: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of clinical research, computational models have received increasing attention over the past decades. In this systematic review, we aimed to provide an overview of the role of so-called in silico clinical trials (ISCTs) in medical applications. Exemplary for the broad field of clinical medicine, we focused on in silico (IS) methods applied in drug development, sometimes also referred to as model informed drug development (MIDD). We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for published articles and registered clinical trials related to ISCTs. We identified 202 articles and 48 trials, and of these, 76 articles and 19 trials were directly linked to drug development. We extracted information from all 202 articles and 48 clinical trials and conducted a more detailed review of the methods used in the 76 articles that are connected to drug development. Regarding application, most articles and trials focused on cancer and imaging-related research while rare and pediatric diseases were only addressed in 14 articles and 5 trials, respectively. While some models were informed combining mechanistic knowledge with clinical or preclinical (in-vivo or in-vitro) data, the majority of models were fully data-driven, illustrating that clinical data is a crucial part in the process of generating synthetic data in ISCTs. Regarding reproducibility, a more detailed analysis revealed that only 24% (18 out of 76) of the articles provided an open-source implementation of the applied models, and in only 20% of the articles the generated synthetic data were publicly available. Despite the widely raised interest, we also found that it is still uncommon for ISCTs to be part of a registered clinical trial and their application is restricted to specific diseases leaving potential benefits of ISCTs not fully exploited.
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 | 0.022 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".