Logo-ps

Submitted: 27 Oct 2025
Revision: 26 Jan 2026
Accepted: 17 Feb 2026
ePublished: 19 Aug 2026
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

Pharm Sci. 2026;32(3): 394-404.
doi: 10.34172/ps.43408
  Abstract View: 385
  PDF Download: 64

Original Article

Reverse-Engineering Drug-Release Kinetics from Dissolution Profiles with Machine Learning

Sergio Sánchez-Herrero 1,2* ORCID logo, Joaquin Herrerias-Lopez-De-Heredia 2, Laura Calvet 3 ORCID logo, Angel A. Juan 4 ORCID logo

1 Dept. of Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunication, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, 08018 Barcelona, Spain
2 Simulation Department, Empresarios Agrupados Internacional S.A., 28015 Madrid, Spain
3 Telecommunications and Systems Engineering Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08202 Sabadell, Spain
4 Research Center on Production Management and Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 03801 Alcoy, Spain
*Corresponding Author: Sergio Sánchez-Herrero, Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Introduction: Dissolution is commonly modeled forward from formulation inputs. We propose an inverse-learning framework where machine learning (ML) infers mechanistically interpretable release-kinetic parameters from dissolution profiles and relates them to formulation and pharmacokinetic (PK) descriptors within Quality by Design (QbD).

Methods: An in silico dataset of release profiles was generated using six kinetic models (zero-order, first-order, Higuchi, Hixson–Crowell, Korsmeyer–Peppas and Weibull). Each profile was fitted to all candidate models to select the best mechanism and estimate its parameters. ML regressors (tree-based ensembles and artificial neural networks) were trained using full time series and engineered summaries (e.g., lag time, fractional release at 2/6/12 h and AUC0–24); PK features (e.g., Tmax, Cmax, CL, Vc) were incorporated when applicable. Performance was evaluated by cross-validation and external tests using R² and error metrics, and interpretability was assessed with SHAP.

Results: Gradient boosting performed best for simpler kinetics (zero/first/Higuchi/Hixson–Crowell; R²≈0.99; AFE/AAFE≈1.00–1.01). For complex kinetics, neural networks were best for Korsmeyer–Peppas (R²=0.89), and boosting remained strong for Weibull. SHAP highlighted AUC0–24, Tmax and Cmax as dominant predictors. External experimental profiles showed good agreement by visual comparison.

Conclusion: Inverse learning can recover mechanistically meaningful release parameters from dissolution data and connect them to formulation and PK descriptors, supporting faster and more transparent modified-release design under QbD.


First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 59

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 64

Your browser does not support the canvas element.