Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39153056›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2024

Machine Learning Methods for Precision Dosing in Anticancer Drug Therapy: A Scoping Review.

Olga Teplytska, Moritz Ernst, Luca Marie Koltermann, Diego Valderrama, Elena Trunz, Marc Vaisband, Jan Hasenauer, Holger Fröhlich, Ulrich Jaehde

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Rising Role of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Pharmacometrics and Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatrics.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Olga TeplytskaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, An der Immenburg 4, 53121, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-1849-0115
Moritz ErnstFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Public Health, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0360-913X
Luca Marie KoltermannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, An der Immenburg 4, 53121, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0002-7555-2048
Diego ValderramaDepartment of Bioinformatics, Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI), Sankt Augustin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3450-0359
Elena TrunzInstitute of Computer Science II, Visual Computing, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4037-7369
Marc VaisbandHausdorff Center for Mathematics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4721-0315
Jan HasenauerHausdorff Center for Mathematics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4935-3312
Holger FröhlichDepartment of Bioinformatics, Fraunhofer Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI), Sankt Augustin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5328-1243
Ulrich JaehdeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Bonn, An der Immenburg 4, 53121, Bonn, Germany. u.jaehde@uni-bonn.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-7370

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 16DHBK1022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the last decade, various Machine Learning techniques have been proposed aiming to individualise the dose of anticancer drugs mostly based on a presumed drug effect or measured effect biomarkers. The aim of this scoping review was to comprehensively summarise the research status on the use of Machine Learning for precision dosing in anticancer drug therapy.

methodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with the interim guidance by Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute. We systematically searched the databases Medline (via PubMed), Embase and the Cochrane Library for research articles and reviews including results published after 2016. Results were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

resultsA total of 17 relevant studies was identified. In 12 of the included studies, Reinforcement Learning methods were used, including Classical, Deep, Double Deep and Conservative Q-Learning and Fuzzy Reinforcement Learning. Furthermore, classical Machine Learning methods were compared in terms of their performance and an artificial intelligence platform based on parabolic equations was used to guide dosing prospectively and retrospectively, albeit only in a limited number of patients. Due to the significantly different algorithm structures, a meaningful comparison between the various Machine Learning approaches was not possible.

conclusionOverall, this review emphasises the clinical relevance of Machine Learning methods for anticancer drug dose optimisation, as many algorithms have shown promising results enabling model-free predictions with the potential to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity when compared to standard protocols.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsMachine LearningNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID39153056
PMCPMC11449958

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.