Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35445350›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical research2022

Quality Assurance of PBPK Modeling Platforms and Guidance on Building, Evaluating, Verifying and Applying PBPK Models Prudently under the Umbrella of Qualification: Why, When, What, How and By Whom?

Sebastian Frechen, Amin Rostami-Hodjegan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Best Practices in Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Sebastian FrechenBayer AG, Pharmaceuticals, Research & Development, Systems Pharmacology & Medicine, Leverkusen, 51368, Germany. sebastian.frechen@bayer.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1170-9392
Amin Rostami-HodjeganCentre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3917-844X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling and simulation emerges as a fundamental asset of drug development. Mechanistic modeling builds upon its strength to integrate various data to represent a detailed structural knowledge of a physiological and biological system and is capable of informing numerous drug development and regulatory decisions via extrapolations outside clinically studied scenarios. Herein, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling is the fastest growing branch, and its use for particular applications is already expected or explicitly recommended by regulatory agencies. Therefore, appropriate applications of PBPK necessitates trust in the predictive capability of the tool, the underlying software platform, and related models. That has triggered a discussion on concepts of ensuring credibility of model-based derived conclusions. Questions like 'why', 'when', 'what', 'how' and 'by whom' remain open. We seek for harmonization of recent ideas, perceptions, and related terminology. First, we provide an overview on quality assurance of PBPK platforms with the two following concepts. Platform validation: ensuring software integrity, security, traceability, correctness of mathematical models and accuracy of algorithms. Platform qualification: demonstrating the predictive capability of a PBPK platform within a particular context of use. Second, we provide guidance on executing dedicated PBPK studies. A step-by-step framework focuses on the definition of the question of interest, the context of use, the assessment of impact and risk, the definition of the modeling strategy, the evaluation of the platform, performing model development including model building, evaluation and verification, the evaluation of applicability to address the question, and the model application under the umbrella of a qualified platform.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentModels, BiologicalAlgorithmsComputer SimulationPharmacokineticsSoftwaremodel-informed drug developmentmodeling & simulationphysiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling (PBPK)qualificationquality assurancesystem pharmacology

Identifiers

PMID35445350
PMCPMC9314283

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.