MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972149089 · doi:10.1586/14760584.2013.850035

Vaccine development costs: a review

2013· review· en· W1972149089 on OpenAlexafffund
Arianna Waye, Philip Jacobs, Anthony B. Schryvers

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsDrug developmentPharmaceutical industryBusinessPublic economicsRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineActuarial scienceDrugEconomicsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cost of drug development is commonly cited between US$800 and US$1.8 billion. A similar statistic for vaccines is yet to be estimated, and it is unclear whether the cost of vaccines is similar to drug development. Financial and regulatory policy significantly impacts the extent and cost of pharmaceutical development, and as such it is important that governments should be informed about the costs of developing vaccines. The purpose of this paper is to review the concept of drug and vaccine R&D costs, to review the associated literature and to relate these findings to the area of vaccine industry's financial and regulatory policy.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207