Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 7;126(9):097001. doi: 10.1289/EHP1655

Figure 2.

Figures 2A and 2B plot log sub 10 RMSE (y-axis) and log sub 10 MRV (y-axis) for injection studies, respectively, across PK models, namely, PPK underscore f sub u, HT3C sub inj underscore E F, GP sub inj underscore E F, PPK underscore E F, PPK underscore f sub u underscore E F, PPK, HT3C sub inj, and GP sub inj for E E, QQ, and all values.

Comparison of PK model-adjustment performance: injection dosing. The performance of 8 PK model-adjustment combinations (detailed in Methods and below) was compared using root mean squared error (RMSE) (A) and mean residual values (MRV) (B) between log10 values of EAD and median LELs from uterotrophic injection studies, calculated for three groups of chemicals: all 29 chemicals (asterisk), 13 chemicals with experimental values for fu and CLint (EE, triangle symbol), and 14 chemicals where QPPR and QSAR models were used to predict both CLint and fu, respectively (QQ, circle symbol). PPK, one-compartment population-based pharmacokinetic model; HT3Cinj, the httk “3compartment” model simulating injection exposure route; GPinj, PBPK model built using GastroPlus™ software simulating injection exposure route. PPK_EF, HT3Cinj_EF, GPinj_EF are corresponding PPK, HT3Cinj and GPinj models with EF adjustment applied for ACCER. PPK_fu is PPK model with fu adjustment applied for in vivo Css in EAD calculation. PPK_fu_EF is PPK model with EF applied for ACCER and fu adjustment applied for in vivo Css in EAD calculation. ACCER, pseudo median activity concentration at cutoff from estrogen receptor pathway model; CLint, intrinsic clearance (L/h); EAD, equivalent administered dose; EF, enrichment factor; fu, fraction of chemical unbound to plasma protein; LEL, lowest effect level; QPPR, quantitative property-property relationship; QSAR, quantitative structure-activity relationship; PK, pharmacokinetic.