IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i6p1697-1717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framework for Evaluation of Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Use in Safety or Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Leona H. Clark
  • R. Woodrow Setzer
  • Hugh A. Barton

Abstract

Proposed applications of increasingly sophisticated biologically‐based computational models, such as physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic models, raise the issue of how to evaluate whether the models are adequate for proposed uses, including safety or risk assessment. A six‐step process for model evaluation is described. It relies on multidisciplinary expertise to address the biological, toxicological, mathematical, statistical, and risk assessment aspects of the modeling and its application. The first step is to have a clear definition of the purpose(s) of the model in the particular assessment; this provides critical perspectives on all subsequent steps. The second step is to evaluate the biological characterization described by the model structure based on the intended uses of the model and available information on the compound being modeled or related compounds. The next two steps review the mathematical equations used to describe the biology and their implementation in an appropriate computer program. At this point, the values selected for the model parameters (i.e., model calibration) must be evaluated. Thus, the fifth step is a combination of evaluating the model parameterization and calibration against data and evaluating the uncertainty in the model outputs. The final step is to evaluate specialized analyses that were done using the model, such as modeling of population distributions of parameters leading to population estimates for model outcomes or inclusion of early pharmacodynamic events. The process also helps to define the kinds of documentation that would be needed for a model to facilitate its evaluation and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:6:p:1697-1717
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00561.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00561.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00561.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dale Hattis & Paul White & Paul Koch, 1993. "Uncertainties in Pharmacokinetic Modeling for Perchloroethylene: II. Comparison of Model Predictions with Data for a Variety of Different Parameters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 599-610, December.
    2. Dale Hattis & J Prerna Banati & Rob Goble & David E. Burmaster, 1999. "Human Interindividual Variability in Parameters Related to Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 711-726, August.
    3. Peter J. Robinson, 1992. "Physiologically Based Liver Modeling and Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 139-148, March.
    4. H. J. Clewell & Tze‐san Lee & R. L. Carpenter, 1994. "Sensitivity of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models to Variation in Model Parameters: Methylene Chloride," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 521-531, August.
    5. Justin G. Teeguarden & Hugh A. Barton, 2004. "Computational Modeling of Serum‐Binding Proteins and Clearance in Extrapolations Across Life Stages and Species for Endocrine Active Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 751-770, June.
    6. Tracey J. Woodruff & Frédéric Y. Bois & David Auslander & Robert C. Spear, 1992. "Structure and Parameterization of Pharmacokinetic Models: Their Impact on Model Predictions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 189-201, June.
    7. Harvey J. Clewell & Jeffery M. Gearhart & P. Robinan Gentry & Tammie R. Covington & Cynthia B. VanLandingham & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1999. "Evaluation of the Uncertainty in an Oral Reference Dose for Methylmercury Due to Interindividual Variability in Pharmacokinetics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 547-558, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Deepika Deepika & Vikas Kumar, 2023. "The Role of “Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model (PBPK)” New Approach Methodology (NAM) in Pharmaceuticals and Environmental Chemical Risk Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. John Wambaugh & Imran Shah, 2010. "Simulating Microdosimetry in a Virtual Hepatic Lobule," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Dustin F Kapraun & John F Wambaugh & R Woodrow Setzer & Richard S Judson, 2019. "Empirical models for anatomical and physiological changes in a human mother and fetus during pregnancy and gestation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-56, May.
    4. Eva D. McLanahan & Paul White & Lynn Flowers & Paul M. Schlosser, 2014. "The Use of PBPK Models to Inform Human Health Risk Assessment: Case Study on Perchlorate and Radioiodide Human Lifestage Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 356-366, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dale Hattis & Gary Ginsberg & Bob Sonawane & Susan Smolenski & Abel Russ & Mary Kozlak & Rob Goble, 2003. "Differences in Pharmacokinetics Between Children and Adults—II. Children's Variability in Drug Elimination Half‐Lives and in Some Parameters Needed for Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 117-142, February.
    2. Hilko Van Der Voet & Wout Slob, 2007. "Integration of Probabilistic Exposure Assessment and Probabilistic Hazard Characterization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 351-371, April.
    3. Ramya Chari & Thomas A. Burke & Ronald H. White & Mary A. Fox, 2012. "Integrating Susceptibility into Environmental Policy: An Analysis of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Kai H. Liao & Yu‐Mei Tan & Harvey J. Clewell, 2007. "Development of a Screening Approach to Interpret Human Biomonitoring Data on Volatile Organic Compounds: Reverse Dosimetry on Biomonitoring Data for Trichloroethylene," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1223-1236, October.
    5. Bruce C. Allen & C. Eric Hack & Harvey J. Clewell, 2007. "Use of Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis with a Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Model of Methylmercury to Estimate Exposures in U.S. Women of Childbearing Age," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 947-959, August.
    6. Karen H. Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois, 1996. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Physiological Pharmacokinetic Parameter Distributions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 741-754, December.
    7. Maxine E. Dakins & John E. Toll & Mitchell J. Small & Kevin P. Brand, 1996. "Risk‐Based Environmental Remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo Analysis and the Expected Value of Sample Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 67-79, February.
    8. Lorenz R. Rhomberg, 2010. "Uncertainty Factor Conundrums: What Lessons Should We Draw?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 349-352, March.
    9. William J. Cronin & Eric J. Oswald & Michael L. Shelley & Jeffrey W. Fisher & Carlyle D. Flemming, 1995. "A Trichloroethylene Risk Assessment Using a Monte Carlo Analysis of Parameter Uncertainty in Conjunction with Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 555-565, October.
    10. Paul M. Schlosser & Susan J. Borghoff & Nicholas G. Coldham & John A. David & Sujit K. Ghosh, 2006. "Physiologically‐Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Genistein in Rats, Part I: Model Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 483-500, April.
    11. Kimberly M. Thompson & John S. Evans, 1997. "The Value of Improved National Exposure Information for Perchloroethylene (Perc): A Case Study for Dry Cleaners," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 253-271, April.
    12. Kevin P. Brand & Mitchell J. Small, 1995. "Updating Uncertainty in an Integrated Risk Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 719-729, 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:24:y:2004:i:6:p:1697-1717. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.