Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5443_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
15.5 Virtual screening offers several advantages
in drug discovery
Time- and cost-efficiency: Virtual screening significantly reduces the number of com-
pounds that need to be experimentally tested, saving time and resources in the drug
discovery process.
Access to larger chemical space: Virtual screening allows researchers to explore a
vast chemical space that may not be feasible through traditional experimental methods.
Rational drug design: By understanding the binding interactions between the
compounds and the target, virtual screening can guide the rational design of new mol-
ecules with improved binding properties [60].
15.6 Challenges of virtual screening
Model accuracy: Predictive models used in virtual screening may not always acc u-
rately predict binding affinities or properties.
False results: False positives and negatives can occur in screening. This means that
there can be instances where compounds are predicted to bind but they do not actu-
ally, or compounds are predicted not to bind.
Complexity: The accuracy of the results depends on various factors, including the
quality of the protein structure, the accuracy of the scoring functions, and the repre-
sentation of compounds.
15.7 Advantages and disadvantages of using
computational approaches for predicting drug
solubility and permeability using AI
Computational approaches for predicting drug solubility and permeability using AI
offer substantial benefits in terms of speed, cost-effectiveness, and prediction accu-
racy. However, careful attention to data quality, model complexity, and the need for
experimental validation is essential to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the pre-
dictions. As technology advances, addressing these challenges can lead to more effi-
cient drug discovery processes and the identification of better drug candidates (Table
15.1) [61, 62].
15 Computational approaches for predicting drug solubility 363
https://t.me/med1917
15.7.1 Advantages
Speed and efficiency: AI-driven computational methods can rapidly analyze a large
number of compounds in a short time, allowing researchers to screen a diverse chem-
ical space efficiently.
Cost-effectiveness: These approa ches reduce the need for extensive experimental as-
says, saving costs associated with synthesizing and testing numerous compounds.
Data utilization: AI can leverage vast datasets, learning complex r elationships be-
tween chemical structures and properties that might be difficult to capture by tradi-
tional methods.
Prediction accuracy: AI models can uncover intricate patterns that contribute to solu-
bility and permeability, potentially leading to more accurate predictions than tradi-
tional methods.
High-dimensional data: AI models, especially DL and GNNs, handle high-dimensional
molecular data effectively, capturing nuanced features and relationships.
Early candidate screening: AI-driven predictions help prioritize drug candidates with
favorable solubility and permeability, increasing the likelihood of successful out-
comes in later stages.
15.7.2 Disadvantages
Data quality: AI models heavily rely on high-quality, diverse, and representative train-
ing data. Biased or incomplete data could lead to biased or inaccurate predictions.
Overfitting: Without careful regularization and validation, AI models can overfit the
training data, leading to poor generalization to new compounds.
Model complexity: Some AI models, particularly DL models, can be complex and re-
quire significant computational resources, making them challenging to deploy on less
powerful systems.
Interpretability: The inner workings of AI models can be challenging to interpret,
making it difficult to understand why a model made a specific prediction.
Data privacy and security: Large datasets used for training may contain sensitive in-
formation, raising concerns about data privacy and security.
Validation and experimentation: Computational predictions still require experimental
validation to ensure reliability, and the absence of experimental confirmation can in-
troduce uncertainty.
364 Vimal Arora, Payal Mittal, and Sanjay Kumar Elisetti
https://t.me/med1917
Chemical diversity: AI models might struggle with rare or unusual chemical structures
that deviate from the training data’s common patterns. Few of the AI-based prediction
tools for assessing physicochemical properties of the drugs are discussed in table 15.1.
15.8 Conclusion
Incorporating computational approaches forpredictingdrugsolubilityandperme-
ability using AI in the drug discovery process has the potential to revolutionize the
field. A balanced integration of these techniques with experimental validation and in-
terdisciplinary collaboration is key to harnessing their full potential, accelerating
drug development, and delivering safer and more effective medications to patients.
As technology advances and AI methods evolve, the pharmaceutical industry stands
to benefit from improved efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and innovation in pursuit of
novel therapeutic agents.
References
[1] Woodcock, J., & Woosley, R. The FDA Critical Path Initiative and Its Influence on New Drug
Development. Annual Review of Medicine, 2008Jan, 59(1), 1–12. doi:10.1146/annurev.
med.59.090506.155819
[2] Prasad, V., & Mailankody, S. Research and Development Spending to Bring a Single Cancer Drug to
Market and Revenues After Approval. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2017Nov, 177(11), 1569–1575.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3601
[3] Gao, M., Liu, S., Chen, J., Gordon, K. C., Tian, F., & McGoverin, C. M. Potential of Raman spectroscopy
in facilitating pharmaceutical formulations development – An AI perspective. International Journal
of Pharmacy, 2021, 597, 120334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120334
[4] Scholz, P., & Keck, C. M. Nanocrystals: From Raw Material to the Final Formulated Oral Dosage
Form–A Review. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 2015, 21(29), 4217–4228. doi:10.2174/
1381612821666150901100417
[5] Aguilar, J. E. 1 – Introduction. In: J. E. B. T.-F. T. for P. D. Aguilar, (Ed.) Woodhead Publishing Series in
Biomedicine. 2013, (pp. 1–5). Woodhead Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1533/9781908818508.1
Table 15.1: AI tools to predict physichochemical parameters of drugs.
Tools Details Website URL
DDD
Plus
ADMET
predictor
ADMET predictor module extends the capability of DDD
Plus by enabling you to obtain predictions from the
structure of all physicochemical parameters required
for DDD Plus, providing you with in silico inputs to use
for your simulations of in vitro dissolution of
pharmaceutical dosage forms.
https://www.simulations-plus.com/
software/dddplus/admet-predictor/
15 Computational approaches for predicting drug solubility 365
https://t.me/med1917
[6] Pammolli, F., Magazzini, L., & Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nature
Reviews Drug Discovery, 2011Jun, 10(6), 428–438. doi:10.1038/nrd3405
[7] Schuhmacher, A., Wilisch, L., Kuss, M., Kandelbauer, A., Hinder, M., & Gassmann, O. R&D efficiency
of leading pharmaceutical companies – A 20-year analysis. Drug Discovery Today, 2021Aug, 26(8),
1784–1789. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2021.05.005
[8] Fior Markets, Global Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Drug Discovery Market Is Expected to Reach USD
40.36 Billion by 2027 : Fior Markets. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.globenewswire.com/
news-release/2020/06/23/2051663/0/en/Global-Artificial-Intelligence-AI-in-Drug-Discovery-Market-
Is-Expected-to-Reach-USD-40-36-Billion-by-2027-Fior-Markets.html
[9] Schuhmacher, A., Gatto, A., Kuss, M., Gassmann, O., & Hinder, M. Big Techs and startups in
pharmaceutical R&D – A 2020 perspective on artificial intelligence. Drug Discovery Today, 2021Oct,
26(10), 2226–2231. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2021.04.028
[10] Ramesh, A. N., Kambhampati, C., Monson, J. R. T., & Drew, P. J. Artificial intelligence in medicine.
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2004Sep, 86(5), 334–338. doi:10.1308/
147870804290
[11] Miles, J. C., & Walker, A. J. The potential application of artificial intelligence in transport. IEE
Proceedings-Intelligent Transport Systems, 2006, 153(3), 183–198.
[12] Kolluri, S., Lin, J., Liu, R., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, W. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in
Pharmaceutical Research and Development: A Review. The AAPS Journal, 2022, 24(1), 19. doi:10.1208/
s12248-021-00644-3
[13] Senior, A. W., et al. Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning.
Nature, 2020, 577(7792), 706–710. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7
[14] Yang, Y., & Siau, K. L., A qualitative research on marketing and sales in the artificial intelligence age.
MWAIS 2018 Proc, 2018, 41.
[15] Gunčar, G., et al. An application of machine learning to haematological diagnosis. Scientific Reports,
2018, 8(1), 411. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18564-8
[16] Koohy, H. The rise and fall of machine learning methods in biomedical research. F1000Research,
2017, 6, 2012. doi:10.12688/f1000research.13016.2
[17] Young, J. D., Cai, C., & Lu, X. Unsupervised deep learning reveals prognostically relevant subtypes of
glioblastoma. BMC Bioinformatics, 2017Oct, 18(Suppl 11), 381. doi:10.1186/s12859-017-1798-2
[18] Blasiak, A., Khong, J., & Kee, T. CURATE.AI: Optimizing Personalized Medicine with Artificial
Intelligence. SLAS Technology, 2020Apr, 25(2), 95–105. doi:10.1177/2472630319890316
[19] Chen, H., Engkvist, O., Wang, Y., Olivecrona, M., & Blaschke, T. The rise of deep learning in drug
discovery. Drug Discovery Today, 2018, 23(6), 1241–1250. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.039
[20] Mak, -K.-K., & Pichika, M. R. Artificial intelligence in drug development: Present status and future
prospects. Drug Discovery Today, 2019, 24(3), 773 – 780. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
drudis.2018.11.014
[21] VoPham, T., Hart, J. E., Laden, F., & Chiang, -Y.-Y. Emerging trends in geospatial artificial intelligence
(geoAI): Potential applications for environmental epidemiology. Environment and Health, 2018, 17(1),
40. doi:10.1186/s12940-018-0386-x
[22] Caicedo, J. C., et al. Data-analysis strategies for image-based cell profiling. Nature Methods, 2017,
14(9), 849–863. doi:10.1038/nmeth.4397
[23] Ginsburg, G. S., & Phillips, K. A. Precision Medicine: From Science To Value. Health Affairs (Project
Hope), 2018May, 37(5), 694–701. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1624
[24] Yamashita, R., Nishio, M., Do, R. K. G., & Togashi, K. Convolutional neural networks: An overview and
application in radiology. Insights Imaging, 2018, 9(4), 611–629. doi:10.1007/s13244-018-0639-9
366 Vimal Arora, Payal Mittal, and Sanjay Kumar Elisetti
https://t.me/med1917
[25] Labovitz, D. L., Shafner, L., Reyes Gil, M., Virmani, D., & Hanina, A. Using Artificial Intelligence to
Reduce the Risk of Nonadherence in Patients on Anticoagulation Therapy. Stroke, 2017May, 48(5),
1416–1419. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016281
[26] Jiang, F., et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Past, present and future. Stroke and Vascular
Neurology, 2017Dec, 2(4), 230–243. doi:10.1136/svn-2017-000101
[27] Fleming, N. How artificial intelligence is changing drug discovery. Nature, 2018May, 557(7707),
S55–S57. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-05267-x
[28] Gao, C.-Q., Zhou, Y.-K., Xin, X.-H., Min, H., & Du, P.-F. DDA-SKF: Predicting Drug-Disease Associations
Using Similarity Kernel Fusion. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2021, 12, 784171. doi:10.3389/
fphar.2021.784171
[29] Amani, A., York, P., Chrystyn, H., Clark, B. J., & Do, D. Q. Determination of factors controlling the
particle size in nanoemulsions using Artificial Neural Networks. European Journal of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, 2008, 35(1), 42–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2008.06.002
[30] Zagalo, D. M., Silva, B. M. A., Silva, C., Simões, S., & Sousa, J. J. A quality by design (QbD) approach in
pharmaceutical development of lipid-based nanosystems: A systematic review. Journal of Drug
Delivery Science Technology, 2022, 70, 103207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2022.103207
[31] Wen, H., Jung, H., & Li, X. Drug Delivery Approaches in Addressing Clinical Pharmacology-Related
Issues: Opportunities and Challenges. The AAPS Journal, 2015Nov, 17(6), 1327–1340. doi:10.1208/
s12248-015-9814-9
[32] Savjani, K. T., Gajjar, A. K., & Savjani, J. K. Drug solubility: Importance and enhancement techniques.
ISRN Pharmaceutics, 2012, 2012, 195727. doi:10.5402/2012/195727
[33] Price G, P. D. A., Drug Bioavailability. [Updated 2023 Jul 30]. StatPearls Publ, 2023, [Online].
Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557852/
[34] Bhalani, D. V., Nutan, B., Kumar, A., & Singh Chandel, A. K. Bioavailability Enhancement Techniques
for Poorly Aqueous Soluble Drugs and Therapeutics. Biomedicines, 2022Aug, 10(9), doi:10.3390/
biomedicines10092055
[35] Palleria, C., et al. Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction and their implication in clinical
management. J. Res. Med. Sci. Off. J. Isfahan Univ. Med. Sci, 2013Jul, 18(7), 601–610.
[36] Serajuddin, A. T. M. Salt formation to improve drug solubility. Advances Drug Delivery Reviews,
2007Jul, 59(7), 603–616. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2007.05.010
[37] Yang, R., Wei, T., Goldberg, H., Wang, W., Cullion, K., & Kohane, D. S. Getting Drugs Across Biological
Barriers. Advances in Materials, 2017Oct, 29(37), doi:10.1002/adma.201606596
[38] Alqahtani, M. S., Kazi, M., Alsenaidy, M. A., & Ahmad, M. Z. Advances in Oral Drug Delivery. Frontiers
in Pharmacology, 2021, 12, 618411. doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.618411
[39] Alkilani, A. Z., McCrudden, M. T. C., & Donnelly, R. F. Transdermal Drug Delivery: Innovative
Pharmaceutical Developments Based on Disruption of the Barrier Properties of the stratum
corneum. Pharmaceutics, 2015Oct, 7(4), 438– 470. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics7040438
[40] Homayun, B., Lin, X., & Choi, H.-J. Challenges and Recent Progress in Oral Drug Delivery Systems for
Biopharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutics, 2019Mar, 11(3), doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics11030129
[41] Tiwari, G., et al. Drug delivery systems: An updated review. International Journal of Pharmaceutical
Investigation, 2012Jan, 2(1), 2–11. doi:10.4103/2230-973X.96920
[42] Wanat, K. Biological barriers, and the influence of protein binding on the passage of drugs across
them. Molecular Biology Reports, 2020, 47(4), 3221–3231. doi:10.1007/s11033-020-05361-2
[43] Barreto, E. F., & Larson, T. R. E. J. B. T.-R. M. in B. S. Koubek. Drug Excretion. 2021, Elsevier. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820472-6.99999-7
[44] Paul, D., Sanap, G., Shenoy, S., Kalyane, D., Kalia, K., & Tekade, R. K. Artificial intelligence in drug
discovery and development. Drug Discovery Today, 2021Jan, 26(1), 80–93. doi:10.1016/j.
drudis.2020.10.010
15 Computational approaches for predicting drug solubility 367
https://t.me/med1917
[45] Dahan, A., & Miller, J. M. The solubility-permeability interplay and its implications in formulation
design and development for poorly soluble drugs. The AAPS Journal, 2012Jun, 14(2), 244–251.
doi:10.1208/s12248-012-9337-6
[46] Sharma, M., Sharma, R., & Jain, D. K. Nanotechnology Based Approaches for Enhancing Oral
Bioavailability of Poorly Water Soluble Antihypertensive Drugs. Scientifica (Cairo), 2016, 2016,
8525679. doi:10.1155/2016/8525679
[47] Qureshi, R., et al. AI in drug discovery and its clinical relevance. Heliyon, 2023Jul, 9(7), e17575.
doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17575
[48] Vidhya, K. S., Sultana, A., M, N. K., & Rangareddy, H. Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on Drug
Discovery and Development From Bench to Bedside. Cureus, 2023Oct, 15(10), e47486. doi:10.7759/
cureus.47486
[49] Nag, S., et al. Deep learning tools for advancing drug discovery and development. 3 Biotech, 2022,
12(5), 110. doi:10.1007/s13205-022-03165-8
[50] Lim, S., et al. On modeling and utilizing chemical compound information with deep learning
technologies: A task-oriented approach. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 2022,
20, 4288–4304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.07.049
[51] Lee, M. Recent Advances in Deep Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Analysis: A
Comprehensive Review. Molecules, 2023Jul, 28(13), doi:10.3390/molecules28135169
[52] Bechelli, S., & Delhommelle, J. AI’s role in pharmaceuticals: Assisting drug design from protein
interactions to drug development. Artificial Intelligence Chemistry, 2024, 2(1), 100038. doi:https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aichem.2023.100038
[53] Chen, B., Pan, Z., Mou, M., Zhou, Y., & Fu, W. Is fragment-based graph a better graph-based
molecular representation for drug design? A comparison study of graph-based models. Computers
in Biology and Medicine, 2023, 107811. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107811
[54] Dalkıran, A., et al. Transfer learning for drug-target interaction prediction. Bioinformatics, 2023Jun,
39(39 Suppl 1), i103–i110. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad234
[55] Reker, D., & Schneider, G. Active-Learning Strategies in Computer-Assisted Drug Discovery. Drug
Discovery Today, 2015, 20, 458.
[56] Zizaan, A., & Idri, A. Evaluating and comparing bagging and boosting of hybrid learning for breast
cancer screening. Science African, 2024, 23, e01989. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01989
[57] Asperti, A., Evangelista, D., & Loli Piccolomini, E. A Survey on Variational Autoencoders from a Green
AI Perspective. SN Computer Science, 2021, 2(4), 301. doi:10.1007/s42979-021-00702-9
[58] Zeng, X., et al. Deep generative molecular design reshapes drug discovery. Cell Reports Medicine,
2022, 3(12), 100794. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100794
[59] Reddy, A. S., Pati, S. P., Kumar, P. P., Pradeep, H. N., & Sastry, G. N. Virtual screening in drug
discovery – A computational perspective. Current Protein & Peptide Science, 2007Aug, 8(4), 329–351.
doi:10.2174/138920307781369427
[60] Lionta, E., Spyrou, G., Vassilatis, D. K., & Cournia, Z. Structure-based virtual screening for drug
discovery: Principles, applications and recent advances. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2014,
14(16), 1923–1938. doi:10.2174/1568026614666140929124445
[61] Sliwoski, G., Kothiwale, S., Meiler, J., & Lowe, E. W. Computational Methods in Drug Discovery.
Pharmacological Reviews, 2014, 66, 334.
[62] Sadybekov, A. V., & Katritch, V. Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery. Nature,
2023, 616(7958), 673–685. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05905-z
368 Vimal Arora, Payal Mittal, and Sanjay Kumar Elisetti
https://t.me/med1917
Neha Jain
✶
, Manisha Pandey, Unnati Garg, Triveni, Sakshi Malhotra,
Jatin Rathee, Deepika, Shreya Kaul, and Upendra Nagaich
16 Molecular simulations and process
modeling of tableting technology: recent
advances and future insights
Abstract: Theultimateobjectiveofthepharmaceutical manufacturing process is to con-
sistently produce superior products. By using simulation techniques, processes can be vir-
tually tested during the planning stage, and virtual counterparts can be implemented.
Active pharmaceutical ingredients, also called APIs, must be industrially processed into
tablets using an assortment of distinct and continuous parts of the procedures with com-
plicated interactions, based on material topologies and properties. The drug and additives
are blended and then, if necessary, granulated, before being tableted. As a result, the raw
materials, customized procedures, and dynamic ambient conditions all have an impact
on the arrangement as well as the qualities of the intermediary and final product. In this
chapter, a brief about different simulation methodologies employed in tableting, such as
quantum-mechanics, Monte Carlo model, atomistic molecular dynamics, and agent-based
simulation model, has been discussed. In addition, recent advances in the simulation
techniques of the tableting subprocess has also been highlighted.
Keywords: Simulation, quantum-mechanical (QM) techniques, atomistic molecular dy-
namics, Monte Carlo (MC) approach
16.1 Introduction
According to the Oxford Dictionary’s 2023 definition of “simulation,” it is a situation in
which a particular set of conditions is created artificially to study or experience some-
thing that could exist [1]. Certainly, computer simulations have proven to be quite ef-
fective at simulating reality. They are also useful for understanding complicated
systems and testing theories, particularly when conduc ting tests that would be im-
✶
Corresponding author: Neha Jain, Department of Pharmaceutics, Amity Institute of Pharmacy, Amity
University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Manisha Pandey, Deepika, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Central University of Haryana,
Mahendergarh 123031, India
Unnati Garg, Triveni, Sakshi Malhotra, Jatin Rathee, Shreya Kaul, Department of Pharmaceutics,
Amity Institute of Pharmacy, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Upendra Nagaich, Center for Global Health Research, Saveetha Medical College, Saveetha Institute of
Medical and Technical Science, Chennai, India
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111208671-016
https://t.me/med1917
practical, costly, or risky. This became certainly relevant for modeling nanoscale enti-
ties because even the most advanced imaging modalities can only partially capture
the morphological and dynamic inf ormation [1]. Nonetheless, the reality that more
and more results from earlier computer models are really being confirmed by recent
studies has raised our trust in computer simulations. A generalized terminology for
all scientific and computational techniques to examine the behavior of a molecule or
system of molecules is “molecular simulation” or “molecular modeling.” In a simplis-
tic sense, the activity of a molecule is equivalent to the behavior of its particles, which
in turn is equivalent to the activity of its individual atomic building blocks [2].
According to this viewpoint, one must use quantum-mechanical (QM) techniques
that, in essence, solve the Schrödinger equation to provide a trustworthy account of
molecule activity. Unfortunately, it turns out that QM techniques need much computa-
tion and are often inadequate for identifying the important features in complicated
molecular systems [3]. With reference to the majority of functionality, with the signifi-
cant exception of chemical reactions, it is conceivable to use a streamlined, traditional
“atomistic” explanation in which the motion of atoms is substantially modeled by the
movement of their nucleus, which is believed to be classical entities adhering to New-
tonian mechanics.
The conceptual background of the atomistic molecular dynamics (MD) approach is
that the atoms of compounds are the basic units that move because of the interatomic
forces, also known as the “force field,” applied by the particles within a single molecule
or by another molecule in the system [4]. The abovementioned assumption and the con-
cept of a force field are both used by the atomistic Monte Carlo (MC) approach, which
differs from the MD approach in terms of methodology. A collection of molecule config-
urations is sampled via MC simulation in accordance with the likelihood that certain
configurations will be found, as indicated by their Boltzmann weights. The steps consist
of randomized atom deformation s that are accepted or declined with a likelihood,
based on the global energy change, caused by the step move and are used to create the
successive arrangements [5]. In contrast to MD, which integrates the motion equation
numerically using short timesteps, MC simulations lack a concept of time and specifica-
tions which do not accurately reflect the actual track of atoms. Nonetheless, given
enough time, both MC and MD approaches yield comparable outcomes for the estima-
tion of specific equilibrium attributes (such as pair distribution functions). We shall
refer to both MC and MD simulations as MC/MD simulations for the sake of convenience
when discussing their shared characteristics and uses, but readers should be aware
that the foundational methodologies are substantially different. For a given system size,
the computation time exhibits an identical scale, depending on the frequency of time-
steps in MD simulations and the number of steps in MC simulations, even though the
step size in an MC simulation and the timestep in an MD simulation have different
meanings. All physical time scales (measured in nanoseconds) in the research specifi-
cally apply to MD simulations. Alternatively, the term “simulated time” describes the
number of steps or timesteps in MC and MD simulations, respectively. It is crucial to
370 Neha Jain et al.
https://t.me/med1917
note that, while comparing with MC simulations, MD simulations have been employed
more frequently to date for issues with drug delivery. Hence, instead of going into detail
about certain new developments in MC simulations that have not yet been applied to
drug delivery issues, we emphasize MD simulations more.
In the subsequent decades, the environment of pharmaceutical operations and
their supervision will change much more. The use of process analytical technology
(PAT) and quality by de sign concepts will be encouraged, and traditional batch pro-
duction will give way to continuous pharmaceutical processes [6]. Yet, both batch and
continuous processes can be modeled in simulation software, allowing for the analy-
sis of parameter variations and their effects on the final output. The process chains in
pharmaceutics currently and during the shift to continuous production are made up
of a combination of batch and continuous operations, each of which has a strong in-
fluence on the structures and properties of intermediate and end products. As a re-
sult, both batch and continuous operations may need to be represented in process
chain frameworks. Up until now, almost every process step has been followed by off-
line batch acceptance sampling to verify the quality of the final product [7].
Methodologies predicting the quality of the product or even feed-forward di-
rected control techniques for process parameter adaptation are frequently absent in
cases of process variations. As a result, this gap frequently results in batch loss and is
expensive. When real-world information is integrated with dynamic simulation tech-
niques, it is possible to predict operations and their associated process chains and reg-
ulate these operations using data-driven, knowledge-based decisions [8]. The final
product geometries and attributes of the intended process chain can be predicted dur-
ing the planning stage. Deviations can be accommodated during the operation phase
based on appropriate simulation methodologies by changing the parameters of subse-
quent process stages, modifying treatment durations, or redoing or adding additional
processes. Moreover, simulation methodologies make it possible to analyze intricate
relationships, making them valuable for producing process knowledge [9].
In dynamic s imu latio n modeling, four com mon simulation paradigms can be
identified. Various paradigms are much more probable for selection depending on
the level of abstraction of the model and the evolution of process parameters over
time (continuous or discrete) [10]. Examples of models that are anticipated to be rep-
resented using the dynamic systems para digm include those having a high level of
detail and continuous parameter change. It is common practice to util ize discrete
event simulations (DESs) to simulate complicated networks like Petri nets, which do
not require constant parameter adjustments but are particularly useful for identifying
the important performance metrics of process chains.
System dynamics models, which are frequently employed for complex social or
political organizations, depict the behavior of the system with little information about
the components at a high higher level of abstraction [10]. The typical method for
modeling a tableting process or subprocess is to use dynamic systems simulations like
flowsheet simulations (FSSs). Moreover, discrete element tech niques (DEM) are em-
16 Molecular simulations and process modeling of tableting technology 371
https://t.me/med1917
ployed, which can be further divided into categories, according to the extent of infor-
mation. Modeling of particle deformation behavior under external forces and the dis-
persion of pressures inside particles is done by simulations based on the finite
element method (FEM) [11]. Figure 16.1 highlights the general dynamic simulation ap-
proaches for tableting process [12].
While mixed finite-discrete element techniques model particle deformation, associa-
tion with other particulates, morphology, and dimension in detail, cellular automata
techniques model the association with nearby particulate clusters instead of the par-
ticulate altogether. In the production process, FSS is widely utilized to describe how
the characteristics of continuous phases vary (even if solids are, however, regarded as
continuous phases). Networks of elements and transformations are created, much like
the DES models, to represent things like process chains and aggregates. The networks,
or components, of an FSS network are employed to compute output streams from
specified input streams in accordance with physical conditions. The application of FSS
models for solid systems has only lately been researched due to the increasingly com-
plicated descriptions of materials [13].
Several approaches to dynamic systems modeling have demonstrated their value
in modeling specific process behaviors or production chains. FSS, nonetheless, is un-
able to ascertain the distributed product attributes and their impact on the process
because of the varying abstraction levels of the techniques. Contrarily, the significant
computing overhead of discrete element simulations prevents them from simulating
entire process chains [13]. To close this gap, previous research has attempted to adapt
FSS, particularly for particle processes, to predict specific product properties. This led
Figure 16.1: Mapping of common dynamic simulation strategies based on simulation modeling concepts
for the tableting process (adopted and modified with permission from Martin et al. [12]).
372 Neha Jain et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана