ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
Evaluation of Quantitative Structure Property Relationship Algorithms for Predicting Plasma Protein Binding in Humans.
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction variability in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of tissue disposition under deep uncertainty.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- β-Lactam Potentiating Activity, Molecular Docking, and ADMET Analysis of 3-Substituted Coumarins.Current microbiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Prediction model for milk transfer of drugs by primarily evaluating the area under the curve using QSAR/QSPR.Pharmaceutical research · 2023Article
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023Article
- Article
- Towards best use and regulatory acceptance of generic physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models for in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) in chemical risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2022Article
- Exposure forecasting - ExpoCast - for data-poor chemicals in commerce and the environment.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2022Review
- Plasma Protein Binding Rate and Pharmacokinetics of Lekethromycin in Rats.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- IVIVE: Facilitating the Use ofToxics · 2022Review
- High-throughput PBTK models forExpert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2021Review
- Designing QSARs for Parameters of High-Throughput Toxicokinetic Models Using Open-Source Descriptors.Environmental science & technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The extent of plasma protein binding is an important compound-specific property that influences a compound's pharmacokinetic behavior and is a critical input parameter for predicting exposure in physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. When experimentally determined fraction unbound in plasma (fup) data are not available, quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models can be used for prediction. Because available QSPR models were developed based on training sets containing pharmaceutical-like compounds, we compared their prediction accuracy for environmentally relevant and pharmaceutical compounds. Fup values were calculated using Ingle et al., Watanabe et al. and ADMET Predictor (Simulation Plus). The test set included 818 pharmaceutical and environmentally relevant compounds with fup values ranging from 0.01 to 1. Overall, the three QSPR models resulted in over-prediction of fup for highly binding compounds and under-prediction for low or moderately binding compounds. For highly binding compounds (0.01≤ fup ≤ 0.25), Watanabe et al. performed better with a lower mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.7% and a lower mean absolute relative prediction error (RPE) of 171.7 % than other methods. For low to moderately binding compounds, both Ingle et al. and ADMET Predictor performed better than Watanabe et al. with superior MAE and RPE values. The positive polar surface area, the number of basic functional groups and lipophilicity were the most important chemical descriptors for predicting fup. This study demonstrated that the prediction of fup was the most uncertain for highly binding compounds. This suggested that QSPR-predicted fup values should be used with caution in PBPK modeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.