ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2025
Leveraging large language models in pharmacometrics: evaluation of NONMEM output interpretation and simulation capabilities.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2025. 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.
- Context Engineering for AI-Assisted Pharmacometrics: A Practical Tutorial.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- A Generative AI Framework for Pharmacokinetic Clinical Study Report Authoring.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- PKGPT: Expert-Orchestrated Recursive LLM Agent for Automated NONMEM PopPK Modeling with Human Benchmarking.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- AI for NONMEM Coding in Pharmacometrics Research and Education: Shortcut or Pitfall?CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Pharmacometrics in the Age of Large Language Models: A Vision of the Future.Pharmaceutics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in large language models (LLMs) have suggested their potential utility for diverse pharmacometrics tasks. This study investigated the performance of LLM for generating structure diagrams, publication-ready tables, analysis reports, and conducting simulations using output files from pharmacometrics models. Forty-four NONMEM output files were obtained from the GitHub software repository. The performance of Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Claude) and ChatGPT 4o was compared with two other candidate LLMs: Gemini 1.5 Pro and Llama 3.2. Prompt engineering was conducted for Claude for pharmacometrics tasks such as generating model structure diagrams, parameter tables, and analysis reports. Simulations were conducted using ChatGPT. Claude Artifacts was used to visualize model structure diagrams, parameter tables, and analysis reports. A web-based R Shiny application was implemented to provide an accessible interface for automating pharmacometric model structure diagrams, parameter tables, and analysis reports tasks. Claude was selected for investigation following performance comparisons with ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Llama on model structure diagram and parameter table generation tasks. Claude successfully generated the model structure diagrams for 40 (90.9%) of the 44 NONMEM output files with the initial prompts, and the remaining were resolved with an additional prompt. Claude consistently generated accurate parameter summary tables and succinct model analysis reports. Modest variability in model structure diagrams generated for replicate prompts was identified. ChatGPT demonstrated simulation capabilities but revealed limitations with complex PK/PD models. LLMs have the potential to enhance key pharmacometrics modeling tasks. However, expert review of the results generated is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40464844What 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.