Cited by 3Computational Drug Discovery MethodsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Leveraging large language models to compare perspectives on integrating QSP and AI/ML

Androulakis, Ioannis P., Cheng, Limei, Cho, Carolyn R., Zhang, Tongli·2025·Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Abstract

Two recent papers offer contrasting perspectives on integrating Quantitative Systems Pharmacology (QSP) and Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML): one views QSP as the primary driver using AI/ML to enhance computational tasks, while the other argues that AI/ML should provide an alternative mechanistic framework. Rather than perpetuate this tension, we used Large Language Models (LLMs) to examine both papers in two tests-one comparing their core arguments and another probing which methodology LLM should take precedence. Repeating each test multiple times with an identical and neutral prompt, the LLM revealed that each perspective suits specific stages of the drug development pipeline. QSP offers mechanistic rigor and regulatory clarity, and AI/ML excels in high-dimensional data analysis and exploratory modeling. A hybrid approach might best serve researchers and decision-makers, especially when harmonizing data-driven insights with mechanistic integrity. This exercise also highlights the potential of LLMs as promising tools for synthesizing complex information, offering an arguably less biased viewpoint that can trigger deeper discussion from the broader community seeking to align QSP and AI/ML in model-informed drug development (MIDD). By combining our human expertise with AI-driven analyses, we hope to further discuss with the scientific community how QSP and AI/ML-and the synergy between them-can drive innovation in therapeutic discovery and optimization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10928-025-09976-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Androulakis, I. P., Cheng, L., Cho, C. R., & Zhang, T.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Incyte (United States) (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Tongli
Venue
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Published
2025-05-05
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
29-29
ISSN
  • 1567-567X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-8744
OpenAlex
W4410085476
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
quantitative systems pharmacology, artificial intelligence in drug development, machine learning, large language models, model-informed drug development, mechanistic modeling, hybrid modeling, drug development pipeline, regulatory science, therapeutic discovery
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Drug Development, Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Models, Biological, Systems Biology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review