ArticleCommunications medicine2025
A machine learning approach to population pharmacokinetic modelling automation.
Article in Communications medicine, 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.
- Application of Population-Based Meta-Heuristic Algorithms for Robust Initialization in Mechanistic Pharmacometric Modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Context Engineering for AI-Assisted Pharmacometrics: A Practical Tutorial.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Automated Pharmacometric Model Development by Leveraging Low-Dimensional Neural ODEs and LASSO Regression.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Predicting Ketamine Exposure in Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Pharmacokinetic-Machine Learning Approach.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026Article
- PKGPT: Expert-Orchestrated Recursive LLM Agent for Automated NONMEM PopPK Modeling with Human Benchmarking.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models are crucial for understanding drug behaviour across populations, yet traditional development is often labour-intensive and slow. This study demonstrates an automated, out-of-the-box approach for popPK model development, leveraging optimisation algorithms implemented using pyDarwin to efficiently handle a diverse range of extravascular drugs.
methodsWe proposed a generic model search space for drugs with extravascular administration and developed a penalty function to discourage over-parameterisation whilst ensuring plausible parameter values. Optimisation within the model search space was conducted using pyDarwin, employing Bayesian optimisation with a random forest surrogate combined with exhaustive local search. This approach was evaluated on one synthetic and four clinical datasets, with results compared to manually developed models.
resultsHere we show that the automated approach reliably identifies model structures comparable to manually developed expert models in less than 48 h on average (40-CPU, 40 GB environment) while evaluating fewer than 2.6% of the models in the search space. Ablation experiments demonstrate the importance of our penalty function in selecting plausible models, and the benefit of global search algorithms in avoiding local minima.
conclusionsThese results demonstrate that a single penalty function and model space can be used within the pyDarwin framework to automatically identify model structures for a diverse range of drugs. By reducing the configuration required at search setup, this approach simplifies the process, potentially making the technology more accessible to users. Adoption of automatic model search can accelerate popPK analysis, improve model quality, increase reproducibility, and reduce manual effort for modellers.
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.