FIGURE LEGENDS
Figure 1. 3-D Scatter Plot of the Clliver, in vitro fm , and the AUCR. Red balls in the 3-D scatter plot represent 33 compounds positioned according to their corresponding values of Clliver, in vitro fm , and AUCR. Green points in the plot show the projection of the red balls onto the AUCR-Clliver plane, demonstrating the relationship between Clliver and AUCR, independent offm . Similarly, blue points in the plot indicate the projection of the red balls onto the AUCR-fmplane, indicating the relationship between fm and AUCR for each compound, independent of Clliver.
Figure 2. Comparison of in vitro and in silico predictions offm accuracy with in vivo values for compounds with a Clliver higher than 15 L h-1. The boxplot on the left depicts the difference between fm in vitro andfm in vivo , while the boxplot on the right displays the difference between fm in silico andfm in vivo .
Figure 3. Comparison of TmaxR predictions made using three different fm s with the measured TmaxR values. The left panel assumes a fixedfm value of 100%, the middle panel uses an in silico fm , and the right panel uses an in vitro fm
Figure 4. Comparison of CmaxR predictions made using three different fm s with the measured CmaxR values. The left panel assumes a fixedfm value of 100%, the middle panel uses an in silico fm , and the right panel uses an in vitro fm
Figure 5. Comparison of AUCR predictions made using three differentfm s with the measured AUCR values. The left panel assumes a fixed fm value of 100%, the middle panel uses an in silico fm , and the right panel uses an in vitro fm