ReviewCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
Building Hybrid Pharmacometric-Machine Learning Models in Oncology Drug Development: Current State and Recommendations.
Review in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Molecular Insights and Computational Modeling of Multiple Myeloma and Osteosarcoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Beyond static biomarkers: systems biology and AI for decoding cancer dynamics.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Building Hybrid Pharmacometric-Machine Learning Models in Oncology Drug Development: Current State and Recommendations.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Classic and hybrid pharmacometric-machine learning models (hPMxML) are gaining momentum for applications in clinical drug development and precision medicine, especially within the oncology therapeutic area. However, standardized workflows are needed to ensure transparency, rigor, and effective communication for broader adoption. In this tutorial, we review pharmacometric (PMx) and machine learning (ML) reporting standards and evaluate them against hPMxML works in oncology contexts as a motivational example to identify current deficiencies and propose mitigation strategies for future efforts. The revealed gaps include insufficient benchmarking, absence of error propagation, feature stability assessments, and ablation studies, limited focus on external validation and final parametrization, and discrepancies between the performance metrics chosen and the original clinical questions. To address these, we propose a checklist for hPMxML model development and reporting, consisting of steps for estimand definition, data curation, covariate selection, hyperparameter tuning, convergence assessment, model explainability, diagnostics, uncertainty quantification, validation and verification with sensitivity analyses. This standardized approach is expected to enhance the reliability and reproducibility of hPMxML outputs, enabling their confident application in oncology clinical drug development, while fostering trust among all stakeholders.
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.