Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36176050›Full record

ReviewCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022

Comparing the applications of machine learning, PBPK, and population pharmacokinetic models in pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction prediction.

Jaidip Gill, Marie Moullet, Anton Martinsson, Filip Miljković, Beth Williamson, Rosalinda H Arends, Venkatesh Pilla Reddy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

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

7 authors.

Jaidip GillClinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Marie MoulletClinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Anton MartinssonImaging and Data Analytics, Clinical Pharmacology & Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3963-6105
Filip MiljkovićImaging and Data Analytics, Clinical Pharmacology & Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5365-505X
Beth WilliamsonOncology DMPK, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Rosalinda H ArendsClinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Venkatesh Pilla ReddyClinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Safety Sciences, Biopharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-4371

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gold-standard approach for modeling pharmacokinetic mediated drug-drug interactions is the use of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling and population pharmacokinetics. However, these models require extensive amounts of drug-specific data generated from a wide variety of in vitro and in vivo models, which are later refined with clinical data and system-specific parameters. Machine learning has the potential to be utilized for the prediction of drug-drug interactions much earlier in the drug discovery cycle, using inputs derived from, among others, chemical structure. This could lead to refined chemical designs in early drug discovery. Machine-learning models have many advantages, such as the capacity to automate learning (increasing the speed and scalability of predictions), improved generalizability by learning from multicase historical data, and highlighting statistical and potentially clinically significant relationships between input variables. In contrast, the routinely used mechanistic models (physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models and population pharmacokinetics) are currently considered more interpretable, reliable, and require a smaller sample size of data, although insights differ on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, they may be appropriate for later stages of drug-drug interaction assessment when more in vivo and clinical data are available. A combined approach of using mechanistic models to highlight features that can be used for training machine-learning models may also be exploitable in the future to improve the performance of machine learning. In this review, we provide concepts, strategic considerations, and compare machine learning to mechanistic modeling for drug-drug interaction risk assessment across the stages of drug discovery and development.

Indexed as

Machine LearningModels, BiologicalDrug DiscoveryDrug InteractionsHumansPharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID36176050
PMCPMC9755922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.