Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25184733›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2014

A mechanistic, multiscale mathematical model of immunogenicity for therapeutic proteins: part 1-theoretical model.

X Chen, T P Hickling, P Vicini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Assessing the performance of QSP models: biology as the driver for validation.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Review
  19. SAAM II: A general mathematical modeling rapid prototyping environment.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

X ChenPharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and Metabolism, Pfizer Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
T P HicklingPharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and Metabolism, Pfizer Inc, Andover, Massachusetts, USA.
P ViciniPharmacokinetics, Dynamics, and Metabolism, Pfizer Inc, San Diego, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A mechanistic, multiscale mathematical model of immunogenicity for therapeutic proteins was formulated by recapitulating key biological mechanisms, including antigen presentation, activation, proliferation, and differentiation of immune cells, secretion of antidrug antibodies (ADA), as well as in vivo disposition of ADA and therapeutic proteins. This system-level model contains three scales: a subcellular level representing antigen presentation processes by dendritic cells; a cellular level accounting for cell kinetics during humoral immune response; and a whole-body level accounting for therapeutic protein in vivo disposition. The model simulations for in vivo responses against antigenic protein challenge are consistent with many known immunological observations. By simulating immune responses under various initial parameter conditions, the model suggests hypotheses for future experimental investigation and contributes to the mechanistic understanding of immunogenicity. With future experimental validation, this model may potentially provide a platform to generate and test hypotheses about immunogenicity risk assessment and ultimately aid in immunogenicity prediction.

Identifiers

PMID25184733
PMCPMC4211265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.