The Value and Benefits of the International Conference on Harmonisation to Drug Regulatory Authorities: Advancing Harmonization for Better Public Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) is an unparalleled undertaking, which has brought together drug regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical trade associations from Europe, Japan, and the United States, to discuss the scientific and technical aspects of medical product registration. Launched in 1990, the value and benefits of ICH to regulators are being realized. ICH has harmonized submission requirements and created a harmonized submission format that is relieving both companies and regulatory authorities of the burdens of assembling and reviewing separate submissions for each region. As more countries embrace ICH guidelines, we anticipate additional benefits, including the promotion of good review practices and, ultimately, a common regulatory language that will facilitate further interactions among global drug regulatory authorities.
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 | 0.345 | 0.520 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".