Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42764259›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026

From Prediction to Decision Making: PBPK and QSP as Regulatory-Grade NAMs.

Karen Rowland Yeo, Piet H van der Graaf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Karen Rowland YeoCertara UK Limited (MID3 Division), Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7020-1970
Piet H van der GraafCertara UK Limited (MID3 Division), Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1314-3484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New approach methodologies (NAMs) encompass a diverse and rapidly evolving set of experimental and computational tools designed to generate human-relevant mechanistic data for use in drug development and regulatory decision making. Experimental NAMs provide insights into drug disposition, pharmacological activity, and disease biology that are difficult or impossible to obtain from traditional animal-based models. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models represent a complementary class of computational NAMs. Together, experimental and computational NAMs form an integrated translational framework that converts mechanistic biological data into quantitative predictions of human exposure, efficacy, and safety across the drug development continuum. In this state-of-the-art review, we present our perspective on the current and emerging role of PBPK and QSP as computational NAMs, supported by case studies spanning a range of regulatory and clinical applications. Across all case studies, the integration of human-relevant experimental data into mechanistic models is shown to be the critical determinant of translational success. We also discuss the evolving regulatory landscape for NAMs, including the recent FDA draft guidance on QSP-based MABEL determination, and the ICH M15 framework for model-informed drug development. Collectively, these developments signal a fundamental shift in how mechanistic models are positioned within drug development and regulatory decision making: not as alternatives to animal testing alone, but as quantitative decision-support frameworks that generate the human-relevant evidence needed to support safer, more effective, and more equitable medicines.

Identifiers

PMID42764259
PMCPMC13590434

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.