MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041870189 · doi:10.1208/s12248-014-9701-9

Summary Report of PQRI Workshop on Nanomaterial in Drug Products: Current Experience and Management of Potential Risks

2014· article· en· W2041870189 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy A. Bartlett, Marcus E. Brewster, Paul C. Brown, Donna Cabral-Lilly, Celia N. Cruz, Raymond M. David, W. Eickhoff, Sabine Haubenreisser, Abigail Jacobs, Frank Malinoski, Elaine Morefield, Ritu Nalubola, Robert K. Prud’homme, Nakissa Sadrieh, Christie M. Sayes, Hripsime Shahbazian, Nanda Subbarao, Lawrence Tamarkin, Katherine M. Tyner, Rajendra Uppoor, Margaret Whittaker-Caulk, William C. Zamboni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AAPS Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsScope (computer science)Agency (philosophy)Human healthRisk analysis (engineering)AuthorizationBusinessNanotechnologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringMedicineComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) Workshop held last January 14-15, 2014, participants from academia, industry, and governmental agencies involved in the development and regulation of nanomedicines discussed the current state of characterization, formulation development, manufacturing, and nonclinical safety evaluation of nanomaterial-containing drug products for human use. The workshop discussions identified areas where additional understanding of material attributes, absorption, biodistribution, cellular and tissue uptake, and disposition of nanosized particles would continue to inform their safe use in drug products. Analytical techniques and methods used for in vitro characterization and stability testing of formulations containing nanomaterials were discussed, along with their advantages and limitations. Areas where additional regulatory guidance and material characterization standards would help in the development and approval of nanomedicines were explored. Representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), Health Canada, and European Medicines Agency (EMA) presented information about the diversity of nanomaterials in approved and newly developed drug products. USFDA, Health Canada, and EMA regulators discussed the applicability of current regulatory policies in presentations and open discussion. Information contained in several of the recent EMA reflection papers was discussed in detail, along with their scope and intent to enhance scientific understanding about disposition, efficacy, and safety of nanomaterials introduced in vivo and regulatory requirements for testing and market authorization. Opportunities for interaction with regulatory agencies during the lifecycle of nanomedicines were also addressed at the meeting. This is a summary of the workshop presentations and discussions, including considerations for future regulatory guidance on drug products containing nanomaterials.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.011

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe AAPS JournalSame topicNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207