ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Machine Learning Meets Pharmacokinetics: A Comparative Analysis of Predictive Models for Plasma Concentration-Time Profiles.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Predicting pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles from molecular structures represents a significant advancement in pharmaceutical research with substantial implications for expediting drug discovery processes. We evaluated five approaches to systematically compare five distinct methodological frameworks for predicting rat plasma concentration-time profiles directly from molecular structures using a consistent dataset and evaluation framework: (1) NCA-ML, predicted non-compartmental analysis parameters with one compartmental PK modeling; (2) PBPK-ML, utilizing ML-predicted in vitro characteristics in physiologically based PK models; (3) CMT-ML, neural networks predicting compartmental PK model parameters with two or three compartmental PK modeling; (4) CMT-PINN, employing physics-informed neural networks trained on concentration-time profiles predicting compartmental PK model parameters with two or three compartmental PK modeling; and (5) PURE-ML, using decision trees to predict concentration values at specific time points. The CMT-PINN approach achieved highest predictive performance closely followed by PURE-ML (R
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.