Steps Toward Harmonization for Clinical Development of Medicines in Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis—A Global Scientific Discussion, Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To facilitate global drug development, the International Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Working Group (i-IBD Working Group) discussed data extrapolation, trial design, and pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations for drugs intended to treat pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC), and considered possible approaches toward harmonized drug development. METHODS: Representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan convened monthly to explore existing regulatory approaches, reviewed the results of a literature search, and provided perspectives on pediatric UC drug development based on the available medical literature. RESULTS: Although pediatric UC, when compared with UC in adults, has a similar disease progression and response to intervention, the similarity of the exposure-response relation has not been adequately established. Consequently, clinical endpoints should be selected to optimally assess efficacy in children. The inclusion of a placebo control in pediatric trials to assure assay sensitivity may be appropriate under limited circumstances. In clinical studies, although the drug under investigation could provide possible direct benefit, placebo treatment should present no more than a minor increase over minimal risk to children with UC. CONCLUSIONS: Partial extrapolation of efficacy from informative adult studies may be appropriate. Placebo-controlled efficacy trials are scientifically and ethically appropriate for pediatric UC given appropriate patient selection and the use of early escape. Clinical studies in pediatric UC may include initial dose-finding studies and exposure-response modeling followed by an efficacy and safety study to further explore the exposure-response relation.
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 | 0.349 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".