Predicting Nanoparticle Delivery to Tumors Using Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Approaches

References

• Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senapati S, Mahanta AK, Kumar S, Maiti P. Controlled drug delivery vehicles for cancer treatment and their performance. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2018;3(1):7. doi:10.1038/s41392-017-0004-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenblum D, Joshi N, Tao W, Karp JM, Peer D. Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1410. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03705-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilhelm S, Tavares AJ, Dai Q, et al. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours. Nat Rev Mater. 2016;1(5):16014. doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng YH, He CL, Riviere JE, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Lin ZM. Meta-analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumors using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation approach. ACS Nano. 2020;14(3):3075–3095. doi:10.1021/acsnano.9b08142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anselmo AC, Mitragotri S. Nanoparticles in the clinic: an update. Bioeng Transl Med. 2019;4(3):e10143. doi:10.1002/btm2.10143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riviere JE. Of mice, men and nanoparticle biocoronas: are in vitro to in vivo correlations and interspecies extrapolations realistic? Nanomedicine. 2013;8(9):1357–1359. doi:10.2217/nnm.13.129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. Pharmacokinetics of metallic nanoparticles. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2015;7(2):189–217. doi:10.1002/wnan.1304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valic MS, Zheng G. Research tools for extrapolating the disposition and pharmacokinetics of nanomaterials from preclinical animals to humans. Theranostics. 2019;9(11):3365–3387. doi:10.7150/thno.34509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price LSL, Stern ST, Deal AM, Kabanov AV, Zamboni WC. A reanalysis of nanoparticle tumor delivery using classical pharmacokinetic metrics. Sci Adv. 2020;6(29):eaay9249. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay9249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HA, Leavens TL, Mason SE, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. Comparison of quantum dot biodistribution with a blood-flow-limited physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Nano Lett. 2009;9(2):794–799. doi:10.1021/nl803481q
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mager DE, Mody V, Xu C, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for composite nanodevices: effect of charge and size on in vivo disposition. Pharm Res. 2012;29(9):2534–2542. doi:10.1007/s11095-012-0784-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachler G, von Goetz N, Hungerbuhler K. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ionic silver and silver nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:3365–3382. doi:10.2147/IJN.S46624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen WY, Cheng YH, Hsieh NH, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of zinc oxide nanoparticles and zinc nitrate in mice. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:6277–6292. doi:10.2147/IJN.S86785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlander U, Li D, Jolliet O, Emond C, Johanson G. Toward a general physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model for intravenously injected nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:625–640. doi:10.2147/IJN.S94370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li D, Morishita M, Wagner JG, et al. In vivo biodistribution and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of inhaled fresh and aged cerium oxide nanoparticles in rats. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2016;13(1):45. doi:10.1186/s12989-016-0156-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Riviere JE. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for polyethylene glycol-coated gold nanoparticles of different sizes in adult mice. Nanotoxicology. 2016;10(2):162–172. doi:10.3109/17435390.2015.1027314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan D, He H, Wu Y, Fan J, Cao Y. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of nanoparticles. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(1):58–72. doi:10.1016/j.xphs.2018.10.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price E, Gesquiere AJ. Animal simulations facilitate smart drug design through prediction of nanomaterial transport to individual tissue cells. Sci Adv. 2020;6(4):eaax2642. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax2642
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Kannan R, Riviere JE. A computational framework for interspecies pharmacokinetics, exposure and toxicity assessment of gold nanoparticles. Nanomedicine. 2016;11(2):107–119. doi:10.2217/nnm.15.177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskin II. Machine learning methods in computational toxicology. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1800:119–139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basile AO, Yahi A, Tatonetti NP. Artificial intelligence for drug toxicity and safety. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2019;40(9):624–635. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2019.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhhatarai B, Walters WP, Hop C, Lanza G, Ekins S. Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox. Nat Mater. 2019;18(5):418–422. doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0332-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh AV, Ansari MHD, Rosenkranz D, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in computational nanotoxicology: unlocking and empowering nanomedicine. Adv Healthc Mater. 2020;9(17):e1901862. doi:10.1002/adhm.201901862
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu JV. Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(11):1225–1231. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00002-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourquin J, Schmidli H, van Hoogevest P, Leuenberger H. Advantages of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) as alternative modelling technique for data sets showing non-linear relationships using data from a galenical study on a solid dosage form. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1998;7(1):5–16. doi:10.1016/S0928-0987(97)10028-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Jung S, Lee J. Prediction model based on an artificial neural network for user-based building energy consumption in South Korea. Energies. 2019;12(4):608. doi:10.3390/en12040608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarovits J, Sindhwani S, Tavares AJ, et al. Supervised learning and mass spectrometry predicts the in vivo fate of nanomaterials. ACS Nano. 2019;13(7):8023–8034. doi:10.1021/acsnano.9b02774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock JT, Khoshgoftaar TM. Survey on categorical data for neural networks. J Big Data. 2020;7(1):28. doi:10.1186/s40537-020-00305-w
   Google Scholar
• Alshdaifat E, Alshdaifat D, Alsarhan A, Hussein F, El-Salhi SMFS. The effect of preprocessing techniques, applied to numeric features, on classification algorithms’ performance. Data. 2021;6(2):11. doi:10.3390/data6020011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw. 2008;28(5):1–26. doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i05
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karatzoglou A, Feinerer I. Kernel-based machine learning for fast text mining in R. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2010;54(2):290–297. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2009.09.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liaw A, Mathew W. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News. 2002;2:18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2016: 785–794.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstra J, Bengio Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res. 2012;13:281–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeDell E, Aiello NGS, Fu A, et al. h2o: r Interface for the ‘H2O’ scalable machine learning platform. R package version 3.30.0.1; 2020: 13.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidhuber J. Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Netw. 2015;61:85–117. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res. 2014;15:1929–1958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prechelt L. Early stopping - But when? Neural Netw. 1998;1524:55–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedeon TD. Data mining of inputs: analysing magnitude and functional measures. Int J Neural Syst. 1997;8(2):209–218. doi:10.1142/S0129065797000227
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan XL, Sedykh A, Wang WY, Yan B, Zhu H. Construction of a web-based nanomaterial database by big data curation and modeling friendly nanostructure annotations. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2519. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16413-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitsios D, Dhindsa RS, Middleton L, Gussow AB, Petrovski S. Prioritizing non-coding regions based on human genomic constraint and sequence context with deep learning. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1504. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21790-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen R, Zhang Y, Sahneh FD, et al. Nanoparticle surface characterization and clustering through concentration-dependent surface adsorption modeling. ACS Nano. 2014;8(9):9446–9456. doi:10.1021/nn503573s
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aiken EL, Nguyen AT, Viboud C, Santillana M. Toward the use of neural networks for influenza prediction at multiple spatial resolutions. Sci Adv. 2021;7(25):eabb1237. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb1237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu F, Wei C, Deng P, Peng T, Hu X. Deep exploration of random forest model boosts the interpretability of machine learning studies of complicated immune responses and lung burden of nanoparticles. Sci Adv. 2021;7(22):eabf4130. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf4130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baghban R, Roshangar L, Jahanban-Esfahlan R, et al. Tumor microenvironment complexity and therapeutic implications at a glance. Cell Commun Signal. 2020;18(1):59. doi:10.1186/s12964-020-0530-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Gao S, Yang D, et al. Influencing factors and strategies of enhancing nanoparticles into tumors in vivo. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2021;11(8):2265–2285. doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2021.03.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan F, Xie B, Yang L. Promoting nanoparticle delivery efficiency to tumors by locally increasing blood flow there. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2021;4(10):7615–7625. doi:10.1021/acsabm.1c00871
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Honary S, Zahir F. Effect of Zeta potential on the properties of nano-drug delivery systems - A review (Part 1). Trop J Pharm Res. 2013;12(2):255–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell MJ, Billingsley MM, Haley RM, Wechsler ME, Peppas NA, Langer R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(2):101–124. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riad MH, Baynes RE, Tell LA, et al. Development and application of an interactive Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (iPBPK) model to predict oxytetracycline tissue distribution and withdrawal intervals in market-age sheep and goats. Toxicol Sci. 2021;183(2):253–268. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfab095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Cheng YH, Chittenden JT, et al. Integration of Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) empirical methods for drug withdrawal interval determination with a mechanistic population-based interactive physiologically based pharmacokinetic (iPBPK) modeling platform: example for flunixin meglumine administration. Arch Toxicol. 2019;93(7):1865–1880. doi:10.1007/s00204-019-02464-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt A, Pinckaers N, Peijnenburg A, Louisse J. Development of a web-based toolbox to support Quantitative In-Vitro-to-In-Vivo Extrapolations (QIVIVE) within nonanimal testing strategies. Chem Res Toxicol. 2021;34(2):460–472. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao H, Wang W, Dong J, Ye Z, Ouyang D. An integrated computational methodology with data-driven machine learning, molecular modeling and PBPK modeling to accelerate solid dispersion formulation design. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2021;158:336–346. doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2020.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneckener S, Grimbs S, Hey J, et al. Prediction of oral bioavailability in rats: transferring insights from in vitro correlations to (Deep) machine learning models using in silico model outputs and chemical structure parameters. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(11):4893–4905. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones H, Rowland-Yeo K. Basic concepts in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in drug discovery and development. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2(8):e63. doi:10.1038/psp.2013.41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin Z, Fisher JW. Chapter 1 - A history and recent efforts of selected physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling topics. In: Fisher JW, Gearhart J, Lin Z, editors. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling: Methods and Applications in Toxicology and Risk Assessment. 1st ed. Elsevier, Academic Press; 2020:1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Tan YM, Worley RR, Leonard JA, Fisher JW. Challenges associated with applying physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for public health decision-making. Toxicol Sci. 2018;162(2):341–348. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfy010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Gehring R, Mochel JP, Lave T, Riviere JE. Mathematical modeling and simulation in animal health - Part II: principles, methods, applications, and value of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in veterinary medicine and food safety assessment. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2016;39(5):421–438. doi:10.1111/jvp.12311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar