Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39425493›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology progress

Comparing in silico flowsheet optimization strategies in biopharmaceutical downstream processes.

Daphne Keulen, Myrto Apostolidi, Geoffroy Geldhof, Olivier Le Bussy, Martin Pabst, Marcel Ottens

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Daphne KeulenDepartment of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8086-333X
Myrto ApostolidiDepartment of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Geoffroy GeldhofGSK, Technical Research & Development, Rixensart, Belgium.
Olivier Le BussyGSK, Technical Research & Development, Rixensart, Belgium.
Martin PabstDepartment of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Marcel OttensDepartment of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The challenging task of designing biopharmaceutical downstream processes is initially to select the type of unit operations, followed by optimizing their operating conditions. For complex flowsheet optimizations, the strategy becomes crucial in terms of duration and outcome. In this study, we compared three optimization strategies, namely, simultaneous, top-to-bottom, and superstructure decomposition. Moreover, all strategies were evaluated by either using chromatographic Mechanistic Models (MMs) or Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). An overall evaluation of 39 flowsheets was performed, including a buffer-exchange step between the chromatography operations. All strategies identified orthogonal structures to be optimal, and the weighted overall performance values were generally consistent between the MMs and ANNs. In terms of time-efficiency, the decomposition method with MMs stands out when utilizing multiple cores on a multiprocessing system for simulations. This study analyses the influence of different optimization strategies on flowsheet optimization and advices on suitable strategies and modeling techniques for specific scenarios.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationChromatographyNeural Networks, Computerartificial neural networkschromatographyfiltrationmechanistic modelingsuperstructure‐based optimization

Identifiers

PMID39425493
PMCPMC12000642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.