Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39644458›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2025

All You Need to Know About Allometric Scaling: An Integrative Review on the Theoretical Basis, Empirical Evidence, and Application in Human Pharmacology.

Daan W van Valkengoed, Elke H J Krekels, Catherijne A J Knibbe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Yerba Mate (Nutrients · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Detailed pharmacokinetic features of a novel bis-boronEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Strategies for pediatric dose derivation from population pharmacokinetic models.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The "fire of life cycles": age-specific metabolic scaling within and among species.Journal of comparative physiology. B, Biochemical, systemic, and environmental physiology · 2026
    Review
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

3 authors.

Daan W van ValkengoedDivision of Systems Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Leiden Academic Center for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0006-7830-2553
Elke H J KrekelsDivision of Systems Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Leiden Academic Center for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6006-1567
Catherijne A J KnibbeDivision of Systems Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Leiden Academic Center for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. c.knibbe@antoniusziekenhuis.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9893-4415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scaling approaches are used to describe or predict clearance for paediatric or obese populations from normal-weight adult values. Theoretical allometry assumes the existence of a universal bodyweight-based scaling relationship. Although theoretical allometry is highly disputed, it is commonly applied in pharmacological data analyses and clinical practice. The aim of the current review is to (1) increase pharmacologists' understanding of theoretical allometry to better understand the (implicit) assumptions and (dis)advantages and (2) highlight important methodological considerations with the application of this methodology. Theoretical allometry originated in an empirical, and later debated, observation by Kleiber of a scaling exponent of 0.75 between basal metabolic rate and body mass of mammals. The mathematical framework of West, Brown, and Enquist provides one possible explanation for this value. To date, multiple key assumptions of this framework have been disputed or disproven, and an increasing body of evidence is emerging against the existence of one universal allometric exponent. The promise of ease and universality of use that comes with theoretical approaches may be the reason they are so strongly sought after and defended. However, ecologists have suggested that the theory should move from a 'Newtonian approach', in which physical explanations are sought for a universal law and variability is of minor importance, to a 'Darwinian approach', in which variability is considered of primary importance for which evolutionary explanations can be found. No scientific support was found for the application of allometry for within-species scaling, so the application of basal metabolic rate-based scaling principles to clearance scaling remains unsubstantiated. Recent insights from physiologically based modelling approaches emphasise the interplay between drugs with different properties and physiological variables that underlie drug clearance, which drives the variability in the allometric scaling exponent in the field of pharmacology. To deal with this variability, drug-specific or patient-specific adaptations to theoretical allometric scaling are proposed, that introduce empiric elements and reduce the universality of the theory. The use of allometric scaling with an exponent of 0.75 may hold empirical merit for paediatric populations, except for the youngest individuals (aged ≤ 5 years). Nevertheless, biological interpretations and extrapolation potential attributed to models based on 0.75 allometric scaling are theoretically unfounded, and merits of the empirical application of this function should, as for all models, always be supported by appropriate model validation procedures. In this respect, it is not the value of the allometric exponent but the description and prediction of individual clearance values and drug concentrations that are of primary interest.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsAnimalsBasal MetabolismBody WeightChildHumansObesity

Identifiers

PMID39644458
PMCPMC11782306

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.