Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35299768›Full record

ArticleADMET & DMPK2021

Lost in modelling and simulation?

Kiyohiko Sugano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ADMET & DMPK, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author.

Kiyohiko SuganoMolecular Pharmaceutics Lab., College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1, Noji-higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few decades, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling (PBPK) has been anticipated to be a powerful tool to improve the productivity of drug discovery and development. However, recently, multiple systematic evaluation studies independently suggested that the predictive power of current oral absorption (OA) PBPK models needs significant improvement. There is some disagreement between the industry and regulators about the credibility of OA PBPK modelling. Recently, the editorial board of AMDET&DMPK has announced the policy for the articles related to PBPK modelling (Modelling and simulation ethics). In this feature article, the background of this policy is explained: (1) Requirements for scientific writing of PBPK modelling, (2) Scientific literacy for PBPK modelling, and (3) Middle-out approaches. PBPK models are a useful tool if used correctly. This article will hopefully help advance the science of OA PBPK models.

Indexed as

middle-out approachphysiologically-based pharmacokinetic modellingreproducibilityscientific literacystructural identifiabilitytransparency

Identifiers

PMID35299768
PMCPMC8920108

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.