Provision of information on regulatory authorities’ websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several organizations have raised concerns about the excessive secrecy maintained by regulatory authorities around the world, in particular in the European Union, France, UK, Canada and Australia. However, limited research has assessed the provision of information by regulatory authorities. This study aimed to assess the type and availability of information provided on the regulatory authorities' websites. METHODS: Regulatory authorities' websites in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, France, Australia and New Zealand) and at the European level (European Medicines Evaluation Agency) were surveyed by two reviewers between October 2005 and March 2006. The survey instrument included 16 criteria organized in 3 domains: information on marketed drugs, information on assessment of drugs and information on drug safety. RESULTS: There was a great variability in the level of information provided. Several medicine agencies did not provide basic information on marketed drugs, such as the summary of products' characteristics. Information on registration dossiers was scant on most websites except that of the US Food and Drug Administration. The European Medicines Evaluation Agency, the French agency and the Canadian agency released public assessment reports that contained only summarized information of registration data. Only one country, Canada, provided full access to pharmacovigilance data. The periodic safety update reports that companies have to provide regularly to regulatory authorities were not available in any country. CONCLUSION: Information on which regulatory authorities base their decisions for licensing new drugs and the rationales behind these decisions were often not publicly available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".