Comparative Analysis of Chemical Distribution Models for Quantitative In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation

Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) utilizes in vitro data to predict in vivo toxicity. However, there may be differences between reported nominal concentrations and the biologically effective free concentrations in media or cells. This study evaluated the performance of four in vitro mass balance models for predicting free media or cellular concentrations. Comparing model predictions to experimentally measured values for a wide range of chemicals and test systems, we found that predictions of media concentrations were more accurate than those for cells, and that the Armitage model had slightly better performance overall. Through sensitivity analyses, we found that chemical property-related parameters were most influential for media predictions, while cell-related parameters were also important for cellular predictions. Assessing the impact of these models on QIVIVE accuracy for a small dataset of 15 chemicals with both in vitro and regulatory in vivo points-of-departure, we found that incorporating in vitro and in vivo bioavailability resulted in at best modest improvements to in vitro-in vivo concordance. Based on these results, we conclude that a reasonable first-line approach for incorporating in vitro bioavailability into QIVIVE would be to use the Armitage model to predict media concentrations, while prioritizing accurate chemical property data as input parameters.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Toxics
Published
2025-05-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13060439
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.02

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Analysis of Chemical Distribution Models for Quantitative In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation

Lucie C. Ford, Ivan Rusyn, Hsing‐Chieh Lin, Weihsueh A. Chiu
3 citations
Toxics
Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
2.02
article

Comparative Analysis of Chemical Distribution Models for Quantitative In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation

Lucie C. Ford, Ivan Rusyn, Hsing‐Chieh Lin, Weihsueh A. Chiu
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) utilizes in vitro data to predict in vivo toxicity. However, there may be differences between reported nominal concentrations and the biologically effective free concentrations in media or cells. This study evaluated the performance of four in vitro mass balance models for predicting free media or cellular concentrations. Comparing model predictions to experimentally measured values for a wide range of chemicals and test systems, we found that predictions of media concentrations were more accurate than those for cells, and that the Armitage model had slightly better performance overall. Through sensitivity analyses, we found that chemical property-related parameters were most influential for media predictions, while cell-related parameters were also important for cellular predictions. Assessing the impact of these models on QIVIVE accuracy for a small dataset of 15 chemicals with both in vitro and regulatory in vivo points-of-departure, we found that incorporating in vitro and in vivo bioavailability resulted in at best modest improvements to in vitro-in vivo concordance. Based on these results, we conclude that a reasonable first-line approach for incorporating in vitro bioavailability into QIVIVE would be to use the Armitage model to predict media concentrations, while prioritizing accurate chemical property data as input parameters.

ToxicsVol. 13(6)
Texas A&M University (US)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, Unilever, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
2.02
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.