MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998083524 · doi:10.1089/jamp.2011.0968

Equivalence Considerations for Orally Inhaled Products for Local Action—ISAM/IPAC-RS European Workshop Report

2012· article· en· W1998083524 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carole Evans, David Cipolla, Tim Chesworth, Eva Agurell, Richard C. Ahrens, Dale P. Conner, Sanjeeva Dissanayake, Myrna Dolovich, William H. Doub, Anders Fuglsang, Afredo García Arieta, Michael Golden, Róbert Hermann, Günther Hochhaus, Susan Holmes, Paul M. Lafferty, Svetlana Lyapustina, Parameswaran Nair, Dennis O’Connor, David A. Parkins, Ilse Peterson, Colin Reisner, Dennis Sandell, Gur Jai Pal Singh, M Weda, Patricia Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)Regulatory sciencePharmacologyMedicinePolitical scienceMedical physicsMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to document the discussions at the 2010 European Workshop on Equivalence Determinations for Orally Inhaled Drugs for Local Action, cohosted by the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM) and the International Pharmaceutical Consortium on Regulation and Science (IPAC-RS). The article summarizes current regulatory approaches in Europe, the United States, and Canada, and presents points of consensus as well as ongoing debate in the four major areas: in vitro testing, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies, and device similarity. Specific issues in need of further research and discussion are also identified.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0190.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug DeliverySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207