Prediction of intestinal absorption: comparative assessment of gastroplus™ and idea™
Abstract
We have assessed two commercial software tools employing physiologically based models for prediction of intestinal absorption in human. IDEA 2.0 and GASTROPLUS 3.1.0 were compared both in their ability to predict fraction absorbed for a set of 28 drugs and in terms of the functionality offered. The emphasis was placed on the practical usefulness to pharmaceutical drug discovery. Predictions were assessed for three levels of input data (i) pure in silico input, (ii) thermodynamic solubility and in silico permeability, (iii) thermodynamic solubility and human colon carcinoma cell line (CACO-2) permeability. We found the pure in silico prediction ability of the tools to be comparable with 70% correct classification rate. With measured input data the IDEA prediction rate improved to 79% while GASTROPLUS stayed at 70%. In terms of functionality GASTROPLUS is a powerful system for the trained user. Open access to model parameters, diagnostic tools and the ability to integrate data make it particularly suitable for the later stages of discovery and development. IDEA is web based and presents a simple interface suitable for widespread use with minimal training. However the limited functionality and inconvenient handling of multiple compound batches currently restrict the usefulness of version 2.0 for drug discovery.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
PBPK platforms have previously been compared from an oral biopharmaceutics and intestinal absorption perspective, but studies on the potential implications of platform differences for disposition-related applications, such as DDIs, are still lacking.
“PBPK platforms have previously been compared from an oral biopharmaceutics and intestinal absorption perspective, 15 , 16 , 17 but studies on the potential implications of platform differences for disposition related applications, such as DDIs, are still lacking.”
From Does the choice of applied physiologically‐based pharmacokinetics platform matter? A case study on simvastatin disposition and drug–drug interaction (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 170
- Authors
- Parrott, N., & Lavé, T.
- Affiliations
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Parrott, Neil
- ORCID
- Parrott, Neil
- Venue
- European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 51-61
- ISSN
- 0928-0987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008286529
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 13.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
- Keywords
- physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, GastroPlus, software comparison, fraction absorbed, Caco-2 permeability, thermodynamic solubility, drug discovery, web-based prediction tool
- MeSH terms
- Pharmaceutical Preparations, Intestinal Absorption, Predictive Value of Tests, Software
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