ReviewArchives of pharmacal research2026
Mechanism-based classification of in vitro-in vivo correlation failures and model-informed strategies for drug product development.
Review in Archives of pharmacal research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In vitro-in vivo correlation (IVIVC) links in vitro dissolution to in vivo drug exposure, enabling the prediction of systemic pharmacokinetics and supporting formulation optimization, dissolution specification setting, and regulatory biowaivers for modified-release dosage forms. Its classical success relies on the assumption that the in vitro release profile remains the dominant surrogate of the in vivo input function, enabling point-to-point Level A relationships between the dissolved and absorbed fractions. This paradigm remains effective in dissolution-controlled systems, where formulation-dependent release rate differences reliably predict in vivo input rates. However, conventional IVIVC breaks down when systemic exposure is governed by drug-specific absorption properties, formulation-dependent post-dissolution phase behavior, physiology-sensitive luminal variability, or inherently complex multi-process release systems. This review proposes a conceptual framework that organizes these previously recognized challenges into four categories: absorption process-driven, formulation-driven, physiological variability-driven, and complex release-driven. The categories may coexist in a single product, and each is linked to modeling strategies reported to improve predictive performance. Physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling, population pharmacokinetic-based IVIVC, and convolution-based approaches are examined in terms of how each explicitly separates dissolution from absorption. The three differ in how directly they represent the underlying biological and physicochemical processes. Particular emphasis is placed on how these strategies support model-informed dissolution specification setting, virtual bioequivalence assessment, and prospective formulation design within the verified domain of each model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867621What 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.