ReviewCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2021
Opening a debate on open-source modeling tools: Pouring fuel on fire versus extinguishing the flare of a healthy debate.
Review in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using the Simcyp R Package for PBPK Simulation Workflows With the Simcyp Simulator.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Current practices for QSP model assessment: an IQ consortium survey.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
- Realizing the promise of Project Optimus: Challenges and emerging opportunities for dose optimization in oncology drug development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Review
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling Approaches for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case Study With Imatinib.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Guide to development of compound files for PBPK modeling in the Simcyp population-based simulator.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
- Increasing application of pediatric physiologically based pharmacokinetic models across academic and industry organizations.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling in pregnancy: Model reproducibility and external validation.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation Linked to Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Assessing the Brain Drug Disposition.The AAPS journal · 2022Review
- A latent variable approach to account for correlated inputs in global sensitivity analysis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As model-informed drug development becomes an integral part of modern approaches to the discovery of new therapeutic entities and showing their safety and effectiveness, modalities of incorporating the paradigm into widespread practice require a revisit. Traditionally, modeling and simulation (M&S) have been performed by specialized teams who create bespoke models for each case and have reservations about letting modeling be done by the greater mass of scientists engaged in various stages of drug development. An analogy can be drawn between M&S and automobiles: typical drivers of ordinary cars use them for daily tasks, such as going from point A to B whereas specialized Formula 1 drivers using bespoke individually made cars to test the latest technologies. The reliability and robustness of ordinary cars for the first group requires elements related to quality and endurance that are very different from those applicable to any Formula 1 car supported by a large team of engineers. In this commentary, we frame and analyze the problems concerning the structure and setup of various M&S tools, and their pros and cons. We demonstrate that many misconceptions have precluded having an open discussion on what each modality of M&S tools strives to achieve, and we provide data and evidence that support the move of M&S to main stream use by many, as opposed to specialized usage by few. Parallels are drawn in many other areas involving laboratory instrumentation, statistical analyses, and so on.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.