MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505301449

THE TRADITIONAL USE AS A REGULATORY CATEGORY – EXPERIENCES IN EUROPE

2009· article· en· W1505301449 on OpenAlex
E. Coquillette, Wieland Peschel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Traditional Complementary and Alternative Medicines · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerbal Medicine Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationDirectiveEuropean unionPharmacopoeiaOrder (exchange)BusinessProduct (mathematics)Political scienceTraditional medicineMedicineLawInternational tradeAlternative medicineFinanceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new European legislation introduced with the Directive 2004/24/EC amending Directive 2001/83/EC a harmonised registration scheme for traditional Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPs) at multinational level. With this legislation the Traditional Use (TU) of HMPs gained a new meaning, because the proof of traditions may replace individual product data for efficacy and safety. With the pan-European upgrade from a simply historic category to a legal one, the TU is now part of the regulatory strategy for HMP manufacturers and as such unique in the licensing of pharmaceuticals. We compared the European legal basis for traditional HMPs with the former legal practice by some European countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Spain) and also non-European countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, India) in terms of six major criteria: (I) self medication character, (II) specified strength and posology, (III) appropriate route of administration, (IV) period of traditional use, (V) sufficient data on safety, and (IV) plausibility of pharmacological effects. Examples (e.g. Equisetum, Solidago, Echinacea). For the acceptance of evidence for Community monographs, the adjustment with monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia, and experience from referral cases are presented. In addition, the different concepts of (1) well-established use medicinal products and (2) foodstuffs with health claims - the major borderlines within European legislation- are discussed. The experiences of European harmonisation process might be useful for Africa and other regions of more diverse traditions when accepting rationally TU in order to strengthen the position of HMPs on the market.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it