↓ Skip to main content

Application of PBPK modelling in drug discovery and development at Pfizer

Overview of attention for article published in Xenobiotica, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Application of PBPK modelling in drug discovery and development at Pfizer
Published in
Xenobiotica, October 2011
DOI 10.3109/00498254.2011.627477
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah M Jones, Maurice Dickins, Kuresh Youdim, James R Gosset, Neil J Attkins, Tanya L Hay, Ian K Gurrell, Y Raj Logan, Peter J Bungay, Barry C Jones, Iain B Gardner

Abstract

Early prediction of human pharmacokinetics (PK) and drug-drug interactions (DDI) in drug discovery and development allows for more informed decision making. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling can be used to answer a number of questions throughout the process of drug discovery and development and is thus becoming a very popular tool. PBPK models provide the opportunity to integrate key input parameters from different sources to not only estimate PK parameters and plasma concentration-time profiles, but also to gain mechanistic insight into compound properties. Using examples from the literature and our own company, we have shown how PBPK techniques can be utilized through the stages of drug discovery and development to increase efficiency, reduce the need for animal studies, replace clinical trials and to increase PK understanding. Given the mechanistic nature of these models, the future use of PBPK modelling in drug discovery and development is promising, however, some limitations need to be addressed to realize its application and utility more broadly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 112 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 31 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 14%
Chemistry 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,237,301
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Xenobiotica
#1,005
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,987
of 140,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Xenobiotica
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.