ReviewJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Towards a comprehensive assessment of QSP models: what would it take?
Review in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 95% CDIRAs, a Credible Interval Based Method to Capture Uncertainty in Population Modeling: Pharmacokinetics Versus Sum of Exponentials Case Study.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical trial simulation of antiviral drugs.Journal of virology · 2026Review
- The dawn of a new era: can machine learning and large language models reshape QSP modeling?Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Review
- Conceptual quantitative systems pharmacology framework for supporting clinical trial design in organ-specific autoimmune and rare diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- The Role of Pharmacometrics in Advancing the Therapies for Autoimmune Diseases.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Editor's note on the themed issue: assessing QSP models and amplifying their impact.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
- An industry perspective on current QSP trends in drug development.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
- Structural and practical identifiability analysis in bioengineering: a beginner's guide.Journal of biological engineering · 2024Article
- CYTOCON DB: A versatile database of human cell and molecule concentrations for accelerating model development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Teaching computational systems biology with an eye on quantitative systems pharmacology at the undergraduate level: Why do it, who would take it, and what should we teach?Frontiers in systems biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) has emerged as a powerful ensemble of approaches aiming at developing integrated mathematical and computational models elucidating the complex interactions between pharmacology, physiology, and disease. As the field grows and matures its applications expand beyond the boundaries of research and development and slowly enter the decision making and regulatory arenas. However, widespread acceptance and eventual adoption of a new modeling approach requires assessment criteria and quantifiable metrics that establish credibility and increase confidence in model predictions. QSP aims to provide an integrated understanding of pathology in the context of therapeutic interventions. Because of its ambitious nature and the fact that QSP emerged in an uncoordinated manner as a result of activities distributed across organizations and academic institutions, high entropy characterizes the tools, methods, and computational methodologies and approaches used. The eventual acceptance of QSP model predictions as supporting material for an application to a regulatory agency will require that two key aspects are considered: (1) increase confidence in the QSP framework, which drives standardization and assessment; and (2) careful articulation of the expectations. Both rely heavily on our ability to rigorously and consistently assess QSP models. In this manuscript, we wish to discuss the meaning and purpose of such an assessment in the context of QSP model development and elaborate on the differentiating features of QSP that render such an endeavor challenging. We argue that QSP establishes a conceptual, integrative framework rather than a specific and well-defined computational methodology. QSP elicits the use of a wide variety of modeling and computational methodologies optimized with respect to specific applications and available data modalities, which exceed the data structures employed by chemometrics and PK/PD models. While the range of options fosters creativity and promises to substantially advance our ability to design pharmaceutical interventions rationally and optimally, our expectations of QSP models need to be clearly articulated and agreed on, with assessment emphasizing the scope of QSP studies rather than the methods used. Nevertheless, QSP should not be considered an independent approach, rather one of many in the broader continuum of computational models.
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.