The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling in pregnancy: Model reproducibility and external validation
Open accessAbstract
Aims: Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have been previously developed for betamethasone and buprenorphine for pregnant women. The goal of this work was to replicate and reassess these models using data from recently completed studies. Methods: Betamethasone and buprenorphine PBPK models were developed in Simcyp V19 based on prior publications using V17 and V15. Ability to replicate models was verified by comparing predictions in V19 to those previously published. Once replication was verified, models were reassessed by comparing predictions to observed data from additional studies in pregnant women. Model performance was based upon visual inspection of concentration vs. time profiles, and comparison of pharmacokinetic parameters. Models were deemed reproducible if parameter estimates were within 10% of previously reported values. External validations were considered acceptable if the predicted area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration fell within 2‐fold of the observed. Results: The betamethasone model was successfully replicated using Simcyp V19, with ratios of reported (V17) to reproduced (V19) peak plasma concentration of 0.98–1.04 and AUC of 0.95–1.07. The model‐predicted AUC ratios ranged from 0.98–1.79 compared to external data. The previously published buprenorphine PBPK model was not reproducible, as we predicted intravenous clearance of 70% that reported previously (both in Simcyp V15). Conclusion: While high interstudy variability was observed in the newly available clinical data, the PBPK model sufficiently predicted changes in betamethasone exposure across gestation. Model reproducibility and reassessment with external data are important for the advancement of the discipline. PBPK modelling publications should contain sufficient detail and clarity to enable reproducibility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Conventional assessments of fetal lung maturity rely on invasive amniocentesis and surface-level ultrasound scoring, achieving moderate predictive performance (AUC ≈ 0.82) but lacking dynamic integration of placental function.
“Conventional assessments of fetal lung maturity rely on invasive amniocentesis and surface-level ultrasound scoring, achieving moderate predictive performance (AUC ≈ 0.82) but lacking dynamic integration of placental function (23, 24).”
From Placenta-pulmonary coupling-guided multimodal AI for fetal lung maturity staging and individualized glucocorticoid therapy (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
The Methods and Results passages discuss AUC as a measure of maternal drug exposure and evaluate pharmacokinetic models, not the predictive performance of fetal lung maturity assessments. Searches for amniocentesis, ultrasound scoring, AUC ≈ 0.82, and placental-function integration found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209
The Simcyp ® Population-based ADME Simulator
Jamei, M., Marciniak, S., Feng, K., Barnett, A., Tucker, G., & Rostami-Hodjegan, A. (2009) · Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology · doi:10.1517/17425250802691074 · Cited by 533
Abduljalil, K., Furness, P., Johnson, T. N., Rostami-Hodjegan, A., & Soltani, H. (2012) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/11597440-000000000-00000 · Cited by 371
Kirouac, D. C., Cicali, B., & Schmidt, S. (2019) · CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology · doi:10.1002/psp4.12390 · Cited by 46 · cited 3×
“, journals could develop teams, with expertise and access to various software, who could provide support reviewers relating to model testing for reproducibility.(30)”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.02.029 · DOI
- 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002579 · DOI
- 10.1353/ken.0.0121 · DOI
- 10.4155/cli.11.125 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40262-017-0539-z · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.030 · DOI
- 10.1124/dmd.109.026609 · DOI
- 10.1124/dmd.112.047118 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10928-020-09706-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s10928-020-09677-1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10928-020-09687-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s10928-020-09698-w · DOI
- 10.1002/cpt.1438 · DOI
- 10.1111/bcp.13642 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11095-006-9210-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF00542353 · DOI
- 10.1002/bdd.2510020307 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.022 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00735.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1984.tb02480.x · DOI
- 10.1002/cpt.1887 · DOI
- 10.1111/bcp.13368 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.11.014 · DOI
- 10.1177/0091270005284192 · DOI
- 10.1124/dmd.115.065920 · DOI
- 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002237 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/psp4.12615 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0139762 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b01276 · DOI
- 10.1208/s12248-013-9505-3 · DOI
- Alexander SPH, 2019, THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20: Transporters, Br J Pharmacol, 176, S397
- Alexander SPH, 2019, THE CONCISE GUIDE TO PHARMACOLOGY 2019/20: Catalytic receptors, Br J Pharmacol, 176, S247
Metadata
- Authors
- Silva, L. L., Silvola, R. M., Haas, D. M., & Quinney, S. K.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Quinney, Sara K.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-08-26
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1441-1451
- ISSN
- 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2125
- PMC
- PMC10293961
- OpenAlex
- W3193274045
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD088014, 5K23HD055305)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM842528 (RMS))
- Indiana University
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, City of Hope (P30 CA082709)
- National Cancer Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Keywords
- physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling, pregnancy, betamethasone, buprenorphine, model reproducibility, external validation, SimCYP, prenatal exposure, drug clearance
- MeSH terms
- Betamethasone, Buprenorphine, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Models, Biological, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Area Under Curve
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