ArticlePharmaceutics2023
Predicting Volume of Distribution in Neonates: Performance of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modelling.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neonatal PBPK model of midazolam and its metabolites for perinatal asphyxia and therapeutic hypothermia.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- A Physiologically Based Modeling Approach to Evaluate Intravenous Levetiracetam Dosing in Term and Preterm Neonates.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparison of maternal venous blood metabolomics collected as dried blood spots, dried blood microsamplers, and plasma for integrative environmental health research.Environment international · 2024Article
- Article
- Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations of Antibiotic Use in Neonates.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) in neonates is still often estimated through isometric scaling from adult values, disregarding developmental changes beyond body weight. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of two physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Vss prediction methods in neonates (Poulin & Theil with Berezhkovskiy correction (P&T+) and Rodgers & Rowland (R&R)) with isometrical scaling. PBPK models were developed for 24 drugs using in-vitro and in-silico data. Simulations were done in Simcyp (V22) using predefined populations. Clinical data from 86 studies in neonates (including preterms) were used for comparison, and accuracy was assessed using (absolute) average fold errors ((A)AFEs). Isometric scaling resulted in underestimated Vss values in neonates (AFE: 0.61), and both PBPK methods reduced the magnitude of underprediction (AFE: 0.82-0.83). The P&T+ method demonstrated superior overall accuracy compared to isometric scaling (AAFE of 1.68 and 1.77, respectively), while the R&R method exhibited lower overall accuracy (AAFE: 2.03). Drug characteristics (LogP and ionization type) and inclusion of preterm neonates did not significantly impact the magnitude of error associated with isometric scaling or PBPK modeling. These results highlight both the limitations and the applicability of PBPK methods for the prediction of Vss in the absence of clinical data.
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.