ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Structured Schemas for Provenance-Rich, LLM-Assisted QSP Model Calibration.
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
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models require calibration data from literature, yet manual curation is inconsistently documented and large language model (LLM) extraction can hallucinate values and fabricate citations. We present MAPLE (Model-Aware Parameterization from Literature Evidence), which uses structured validation schemas as a collaboration interface between LLMs and modelers. Two schemas span two scales: the SubmodelTarget schema for isolated experiments constraining individual parameters, and the CalibrationTarget schema for clinical and in vivo endpoints constraining the full model. Both separate data extraction from modeling decisions, recording every value with full provenance. Targeted validators catch characteristic LLM errors by matching values to source snippets, resolving DOIs, and executing code. For a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma QSP model, we used MAPLE to extract and curate 37 SubmodelTargets and 45 CalibrationTargets. Before any human review, the validators triggered 50 automated retries; every value carries a direct quote from its source and a verified citation; and 11 of 19 parameters are supported by more than one independent source. The LLM drafted usable forward models and code from context, while the modeler supplied the context and scientific judgment it cannot infer, revising forward-model choices in 65% of SubmodelTargets, priors in 46%, and source relevance in all files. This evaluation covers one model in one disease area, by a single group, so it characterizes the framework rather than establishing how broadly it generalizes. MAPLE records the modeler's reasoning in a form that can be re-run and independently checked, so it is not lost when the modeling team changes.
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.