ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacology2026
Deep-Learning- versus Hypothesis-Driven Modeling in Model-Informed Drug Development: A PK/PD Case Study.
Article in Journal of clinical 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.
- Deep-Learning: An Emerging Tool to Support Model-Informed Drug Development.Clinical and translational science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Model-informed drug development (MIDD) has traditionally been guided by hypothesis-driven modeling, in which models are constructed based on established biological mechanisms, physicochemical principles, and experimental hypotheses. More recently, the rise of artificial intelligence has enabled data-driven modeling approaches that often bypass explicit mechanistic assumptions. The potential synergy between these two paradigms is reshaping strategies for implementing MIDD. This study aims to compare deep-learning-driven and hypothesis-driven approaches, highlighting their respective strengths, limitations, and opportunities for integration. A case study is presented with the re-analysis of warfarin PK and PK/PD using both modeling paradigms. The comparative PK analysis indicated that the deep-learning model achieved predictive performance comparable to, and numerically slightly better than, hypothesis-driven modeling based on a one-compartment PK model. The hypothesis-based PK/PD analysis was conducted using three model structures: direct effect, effect compartment, and indirect response. The results of these analyses, including the estimated clinical dose, were compared with those obtained from the deep-learning approach. The deep-learning model demonstrated predictive performance similar to that of the effect compartment and indirect response models and yielded a comparable estimate of the effective dose across the two modeling approaches. A simulation-based sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the dose selection derived from the deep-learning-based modeling approach. The outcomes of the analysis suggest that effective implementation of the MIDD paradigm may be enhanced through the complementary use of deep-learning-based approaches alongside established hypothesis-driven, mechanistic models, thereby supporting evidence-based drug development and regulatory decision-making.
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.