Steps Toward Harmonization for Clinical Development of Medicines in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis—A Global Scientific Discussion, Part 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a pressing need for drug development in pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC). Lack of scientific consensus on efficacy endpoints and disease outcome assessments presents a hurdle for global drug development in pediatric UC. Scientists from 4 regulatory agencies convened an International Inflammatory Bowel Disease Working Group (i-IBD Working Group) to harmonize present thinking about various aspects of drug development in pediatric UC globally. METHODS: The i-IBD Working Group was convened in 2012 by scientists from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan. The members of this group considered reasons for differences in their acceptance of efficacy endpoints and disease activity indices used in pediatric UC, reviewed the available literature, and developed consensus opinions regarding approaches for evaluating outcomes in pediatric UC trials. RESULTS: There is lack of harmonization in using efficacy endpoint and outcome assessments including disease activity indices to assess clinical benefit in pediatric UC trials. Many disease activity indices have been developed, but their biometric properties, such as responsiveness, reliability, and validity, have not been properly validated. Biomarkers, such as fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin, are being investigated for their potential as noninvasive surrogate endpoints in UC. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on the efficacy endpoints, disease activity indices, and outcome assessments is needed for globalization of pediatric UC trials. The i-IBD Working Group offers several perspectives to facilitate harmonization across regions. The development of noninvasive biomarkers as reliable surrogate endpoints needs to be explored further.
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 | 0.365 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".