Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32244748›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2020

The Segregated Intestinal Flow Model (SFM) for Drug Absorption and Drug Metabolism: Implications on Intestinal and Liver Metabolism and Drug-Drug Interactions.

K Sandy Pang, H Benson Peng, Keumhan Noh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of small molecules: How much progress have we made?Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

K Sandy PangLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2, Canada.
H Benson PengLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2, Canada.
Keumhan NohLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2, Canada.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The properties of the segregated flow model (SFM), which considers split intestinal flow patterns perfusing an active enterocyte region that houses enzymes and transporters (<20% of the total intestinal blood flow) and an inactive serosal region (>80%), were compared to those of the traditional model (TM), wherein 100% of the flow perfuses the non-segregated intestine tissue. The appropriateness of the SFM model is important in terms of drug absorption and intestinal and liver drug metabolism. Model behaviors were examined with respect to intestinally (M1) versus hepatically (M2) formed metabolites and the availabilities in the intestine (F

Indexed as

DDIdrug-drug interactionsfirst-pass effectin vitro in vivo extrapolationsIVIVEroute-dependent intestinal metabolismsegregated flow intestinal model (SFM)traditional model (TM)

Identifiers

PMID32244748
PMCPMC7238003
OpenAlexW3015147963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.