ArticleJournal of translational medicine2023
Concept and application of the probability of pharmacological success (PoPS) as a decision tool in drug development: a position paper.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of seamless phase I/II trial designs towards oncology dose optimization with examples of clinical pharmacology considerations in early drug development.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Translational assessment instruments for preclinical to first-in-human decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Model-Based Meta-Analysis With MonolixSuite: A Tutorial for Longitudinal Categorical and Continuous Data.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- The estimation and translation uncertainties in applying NOAEL to clinical dose escalation.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Applications of Flow Cytometry in Drug Discovery and Translational Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn drug development, few molecules from a large pool of early candidates become successful medicines after demonstrating a favourable benefit-risk ratio. Many decisions are made along the way to continue or stop the development of a molecule. The probability of pharmacological success, or PoPS, is a tool for informing early-stage decisions based on benefit and risk data available at the time.
resultsThe PoPS is the probability that most patients can achieve adequate pharmacology for the intended indication while minimising the number of subjects exposed to safety risk. This probability is usually a function of dose; hence its computation typically requires exposure-response models for pharmacology and safety. The levels of adequate pharmacology and acceptable risk must be specified. The uncertainties in these levels, in the exposure-response relationships, and in relevant translation all need to be identified. Several examples of different indications are used to illustrate how this approach can facilitate molecule progression decisions for preclinical and early clinical development. The examples show that PoPS assessment is an effective mechanism for integrating multi-source data, identifying knowledge gaps, and forcing transparency of assumptions. With its application, translational modelling becomes more meaningful and dose prediction more rigorous. Its successful implementation calls for early planning, sound understanding of the disease-drug system, and cross-discipline collaboration. Furthermore, the PoPS evolves as relevant knowledge grows.
conclusionThe PoPS is a powerful evidence-based framework to formally capture multiple uncertainties into a single probability term for assessing benefit-risk ratio. In GSK, it is now expected for governance review at all early-phase decision gates.
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.