Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40810920›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2025

Methodological Techniques Used in Machine Learning to Support Individualized Drug Dosing Regimens Based on Pharmacokinetic Data: A Scoping Review.

Janthima Methaneethorn, Khanita Duangchaemkarn, Brad Reisfeld, Sohaib Habiballah

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Janthima MethaneethornDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. janthima.methaneethorn@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5142-8769
Khanita DuangchaemkarnSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Phayao, 56000, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6864-9066
Brad ReisfeldDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1310-1495
Sohaib HabiballahDepartment of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1750-2758

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIndividualized drug dosing is a highly effective strategy for optimizing therapeutic outcomes, especially for drugs with high inter-individual variability. Population pharmacokinetic modeling is a widely used approach to characterize inter-individual variability in therapeutic drug monitoring. However, the development of population pharmacokinetic models is labor intensive and requires significant technical expertise. Machine learning (ML) represents a promising alternative for personalized drug dosing strategies. Despite numerous studies applying ML in this context, no previous work has comprehensively reviewed and compared their methodologies and predictive performance. This scoping review addresses this gap in the existing literature with the aim to examine the methodological approaches used in ML-based pharmacokinetic modeling for dose optimization.

methodsFive databases were systematically searched from their inception to May 2025. Studies comparing predictions of drug concentrations or pharmacokinetic parameters between ML and population pharmacokinetic models were included. Studies published in non-English language, reviews, protocols, or studies that did not employ ML models for individualized dose regimens or treatment plans were excluded.

resultsFifty-eight studies were included. We found that boosting-based models, tree-based models, instance-based, and regression-based models were the most commonly used ML approaches. Approximately 31% of the studies integrated ML with population pharmacokinetic models, while the remainder developed stand-alone ML models. Inconsistencies in reporting were evident, as only 60% of the studies detailed their feature selection methods. Model evaluation approaches also varied: 47% of ML models used internal test sets, while the remainder employed external datasets or mixed approaches. In terms of predictive accuracy, ML models performed comparably to or better than population pharmacokinetic models, especially for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic variability.

conclusionsThis review identifies substantial heterogeneity in ML modeling approaches, feature selection, and model evaluation. To enhance the reproducibility and clinical applicability of ML models in individualized drug dosing, standardization in reporting and methodological practices is essential.

Indexed as

Machine LearningModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsPrecision MedicineDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug MonitoringHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.