ArticlePloS one2026
In Vitro liposome release profile prediction using explainable machine learning approaches.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Formulation features and test settings influence liposomal in vitro release (IVR) profiles, yet it is challenging to examine these multivariable associations across varied literature data. We created an explainable computational workflow in this proof-of-concept study for classifying liposomal release phenotypes and identify formulation/assay features linked to slow and fast release. Benchmarking kinetic models, simulating Weibull-parameterized release curves on a shared 0-168 h grid, clustering profiles using PCA and k-means, and training supervised classifiers on formulation and IVR descriptors were all done using a publicly available Accelerated IVR dataset. Slow, moderate, and fast kinetic phenotypes were found using PCA-k-means; 98.4% of the variance was explained by the first two principal components. XGBoost demonstrated the best cross-validated performance across evaluated models for the extreme slow-versus-fast subgroup (n = 59); however, class-wise recall and precision indicate preliminary rather than conclusive prediction performance. The most informative descriptors identified by feature selection and SHAP interpretation were media pH, drug loading, weighted lipid transition temperature, and media temperature. These results indicated that risk-based IVR technique development and hypothesis creation for liposomal formulations can be supported by explainable ML; nevertheless, prior to translational or regulatory usage, prospective validation on independently generated datasets is required.
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.