Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36015323›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2022

Modeling Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability to Solutes and Drugs In Vivo.

Ulrich Bickel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ulrich BickelDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jerry H. Hodge School of Pharmacy, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2721-299X
Texas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our understanding of the pharmacokinetic principles governing the uptake of endogenous substances, xenobiotics, and biologicals across the blood-brain barrier (BBB) has advanced significantly over the past few decades. There is now a spectrum of experimental techniques available in experimental animals and humans which, together with pharmacokinetic models of low to high complexity, can be applied to describe the transport processes at the BBB of low molecular weight agents and macromolecules. This review provides an overview of the models in current use, from initial rate uptake studies over compartmental models to physiologically based models and points out the advantages and shortcomings associated with the different methods. A comprehensive pharmacokinetic profile of a compound with respect to brain exposure requires the knowledge of BBB uptake clearance, intra-brain distribution, and extent of equilibration across the BBB. The application of proper pharmacokinetic analysis and suitable models is a requirement not only in the drug development process, but in all of the studies where the brain uptake of drugs or markers is used to make statements about the function or integrity of the BBB.

Indexed as

blood–brain barriercompartmental modelspharmacokineticsphysiologically based PK models

Identifiers

PMID36015323
PMCPMC9414534
OpenAlexW4291915183

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.