IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v12y1992i1p139-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physiologically Based Liver Modeling and Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Peter J. Robinson

Abstract

Because of the inherent complexity of biological systems, there is often a choice between a number of apparently equally applicable physiologically based models to describe uptake and metabolism processes in toxicology or risk assessment. These models may fit the particular data sets of interest equally well, but may give quite different parameter estimates or predictions under different (extrapolated) conditions. Such competing models can be discriminated by a number of methods, including potential refutation by means of strategic experiments, and their ability to suitably incorporate all relevant physiological processes. For illustration, three currently used models for steady‐state hepatic elimination—the venous equilibration model, the parallel tube model, and the distributed sinusoidal perfusion model—are reviewed and compared with particular reference to their application in the area of risk assessment. The ability of each of the models to describe and incorporate such physiological processes as protein binding, precursor‐metabolite relations and hepatic zones of elimination, capillary recruitment, capillary heterogeneity, and intrahepatic shunting is discussed. Differences between the models in hepatic parameter estimation, extrapolation to different conditions, and interspecies scaling are discussed, and criteria for choosing one model over the others are presented. In this case, the distributed model provides the most general framework for describing physiological processes taking place in the liver, and has so far not been experimentally refuted, as have the other two models. These simpler models may, however, provide useful bounds on parameter estimates and on extrapolations and risk assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter J. Robinson, 1992. "Physiologically Based Liver Modeling and Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 139-148, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:1:p:139-148
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01317.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01317.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01317.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leona H. Clark & R. Woodrow Setzer & Hugh A. Barton, 2004. "Framework for Evaluation of Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Use in Safety or Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1697-1717, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:1:p:139-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.