ReviewJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Advancing cancer drug development with mechanistic mathematical modeling: bridging the gap between theory and practice.
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 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.
- Predictive Chemical Kinetic Modeling: Where We Succeed, Where We Struggle, and What Comes Next.ACS engineering Au · 2026Review
- Neural Controlled Differential Equation and Its Application in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Virtual Clinical Trial Reveals Significant Clinical Potential of Targeting Tumor-Associated Macrophages and Microglia to Treat Glioblastoma.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Complex networks interactions between bioactive compounds and adipose tissue vis-à-vis insulin resistance.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- A model to simulate human cardio-respiratory responses to ketamine analgesia.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Quantitative predictive modeling of cancer growth, progression, and individual response to therapy is a rapidly growing field. Researchers from mathematical modeling, systems biology, pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory bodies, are collaboratively working on predictive models that could be applied for drug development and, ultimately, the clinical management of cancer patients. A plethora of modeling paradigms and approaches have emerged, making it challenging to compile a comprehensive review across all subdisciplines. It is therefore critical to gauge fundamental design aspects against requirements, and weigh opportunities and limitations of the different model types. In this review, we discuss three fundamental types of cancer models: space-structured models, ecological models, and immune system focused models. For each type, it is our goal to illustrate which mechanisms contribute to variability and heterogeneity in cancer growth and response, so that the appropriate architecture and complexity of a new model becomes clearer. We present the main features addressed by each of the three exemplary modeling types through a subjective collection of literature and illustrative exercises to facilitate inspiration and exchange, with a focus on providing a didactic rather than exhaustive overview. We close by imagining a future multi-scale model design to impact critical decisions in oncology drug development.
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.