ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2026
Formalizing method choice: a data-driven selection of mechanistic models for predicting human heart drug partitioning.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 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
We developed a workflow based on a human-derived dataset, aiming to predict the human heart-to-plasma partition coefficient, [Formula: see text]. The workflow combines established mechanistic tissue-composition models with an AI/ML-based selector that supports compound-specific selection among mechanistic heart [Formula: see text] prediction methods. Three published mechanistic approaches were implemented and parameterized in a harmonized manner consistent with the described methodologies to generate baseline [Formula: see text] predictions. The ML-based selector was trained using physicochemical, ADME, and pharmacokinetic descriptors to recognize compound-specific differences in model performance. This hybrid strategy preserves mechanistic interpretability while using empirical pattern recognition to formalize a priori model choice across compounds. In internal cross-validation, the selector reduced extreme outliers and provided a reproducible, data-driven rule for compound-specific method selection, although it did not materially outperform the strongest standalone mechanistic baseline in numerical error. Although no individual mechanistic method performed consistently across the full chemical space, the Poulin-Theil approach showed the best overall performance on human whole-heart data. The workflow was also applied prospectively to transthyretin stabilizers, for which reliable heart [Formula: see text] estimates may support further mechanistic modelling of cardiac drug exposure and downstream pharmacological effects. Together, these findings suggest that combining mechanistic calculators with an AI/ML-based selector may provide a practical basis for a priori, compound-specific method selection, reducing reliance on subjective choice of a single mechanistic approach.
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.