ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Validating Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models Using the Continuous Ranked Probability Score: Beyond Being Correct on Average.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validating Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models Using the Continuous Ranked Probability Score: Beyond Being Correct on Average.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have become increasingly popular for model-informed drug development (MIDD) over the past decade. While several guidelines for model evaluation exist, these are by design often of a general and non-specific nature. It is clear what steps should be carried out but not necessarily how. For instance, a validation step needs to be performed to check if the predictions of a model indeed match with an external dataset. However, how to quantify this is yet unspecified. In this paper, we propose a more thorough validation approach based on the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS), a popular metric that explicitly quantifies how well a model recreates the distribution of observed data. Crucially, when applied to PBPK modeling, this metric can be used both in situations where we have individual level predictions and in situations where an entire virtual population is created. The CRPS can also be used to quantify the difference in predictive performance of two competing models. We applied this validation technique to compare two PBPK models. Additionally, we show that using a skill-score approach facilitates the validation of a single model. While our paper focuses on PBPK models, this metric is equally applicable to other models where the goal is to create a virtual population. Additionally, we provide an easily accessible online tool that can be used to perform the proposed validation method.
Indexed as
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.